improving the long-term performance of concrete bridge
TRANSCRIPT
Final Report
June 2018
Improving the Long-Term Performance of Concrete Bridge
Decks using Deck and Crack Sealers
SOLARIS Consortium, Tier 1 University Transportation Center
Center for Advanced Transportation Education and Research
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, NV 89557
Dr. David Sanders
Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Nevada, Reno
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department
of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the
interest of information exchange. However, the U.S. Government assumes no
liability for the contents or use thereof.
Report No. CCEER 18-02
IMPROVING THE LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE OF CONCRETE
BRIDGE DECKS USING DECK AND CRACK SEALERS
Karim Mostafa
and
David Sanders
A report sponsored by Tier 1 University Transportation Center (UTC)
under Contract Number DTRT13-G-UTC55
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research
University of Nevada, Reno
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MS 258
1664 N. Virginia St.
Reno, NV 89557
May 2018
1
Abstract
Many bridges are exposed to snow and ice during the winter. As snow and ice
accumulate over the bridge’s concrete deck, deicing salts are usually spread on the bridge
deck to remove and dissolve the snow and ice. Deicing salts form a chloride solution that
penetrate through the concrete and cause corrosion in reinforcing steel and deterioration
in concrete. In order to decrease the chloride ingress into the concrete, sealers are applied
over the concrete deck surface. It is critical to extend the life of the concrete bridge deck
as deck replacement is very time consuming and expensive.
The primary objective of this project was to develop a guide for using deck and crack
sealers. In this research, five deck sealers and six crack sealers were applied on two
different type of concrete that are commonly used in Northern Nevada: American Ready-
Mix and 3D Ready-Mix. The effectiveness and performance of commercially available
deck and crack sealers were assessed by laboratory tests. The sealers were chosen
according to criteria that are discussed in this report. Five deck sealers were subjected to
three laboratory tests that were conducted at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and
a freeze/thaw test conducted in a company in Denver, Colorado. The specimens subjected
to the freeze/thaw test were then sent back to UNR to complete testing. Six crack sealers
underwent two laboratory tests conducted at UNR. All the tests were conducted
according to ASTM, AASHTO, and NCHRP reports standards.
In order to report the effect of the sealers, a comparison was made between specimens
covered with sealers and control specimens (i.e. specimens without any sealers). Also, a
comparison was made between all the sealers together, and the sealers were assigned into
different categories according to their performance. Each category has a certain score
according to the test, and a total score for each sealer was calculated for all the tests. A
recommendation is given for the sealers that gave the highest performance. The
recommendation was not given for a certain sealer only, but for the chemical family and
general properties for these sealers that gave the highest performance. Generally, all the
deck sealers were effective in reducing the amount of chlorides ingress into the concrete.
Silane sealers gave higher performance than siloxanes sealers, and water-based sealers
gave a higher performance than solvent based sealers. Sealers with chemical family of
Alkylalkoxy Silane gave higher performance among all the other sealers, and it is
recommended to use sealer of Alkylalkoxy Silane and water-based sealer. Epoxies sealers
provided higher performance for bond strength than methacrylate sealers. While for depth
of penetration, methacrylate sealers could penetrate deeper into cracks because their
viscosity is lower than the epoxies.
2
Acknowledgment
This research was funded by the SOLARIS Institute, a Tier 1 University Transportation
Center (UTC) under Grant No. DTRT13-G-UTC55 and matching funds by the Nevada
Department of Transportation (NDOT) under Grant No. P224-14-803/TO #13. The
authors gratefully acknowledge this financial support. This report is based on the thesis of
Karim Mostafa.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract…….. .................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 3
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 8
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research objective................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research plan ....................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2 Background/Literature Review ................................................................. 3
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Sealers background .............................................................................................. 3
2.3 Sealers classification ............................................................................................ 4
2.3.1 Film formers “Barrier coating” ..................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Pore blocker .................................................................................................. 4
2.3.3 Water repellent .............................................................................................. 5
2.4 Water-based sealers and solvent-based sealers .................................................... 5
2.5 Deck sealers chemical family ............................................................................... 6
2.5.1 Linseed oil ..................................................................................................... 6
2.5.2 Silanes and Siloxanes .................................................................................... 7
2.6 Crack sealers chemical family.............................................................................. 7
2.6.1 Epoxies .......................................................................................................... 7
2.6.2 High Molecular Weight Methacrylate .......................................................... 8
2.7 Application procedures ........................................................................................ 9
2.7.1 Deck sealers .................................................................................................. 9
2.7.2 Crack sealers ................................................................................................. 9
2.8 Time of applying the sealers ................................................................................ 9
2.8.1 Deck sealers .................................................................................................. 9
2.8.2 Crack sealers ............................................................................................... 10
2.9 Tests used for evaluating the performance of deck sealers ................................ 10
2.9.1 Rapid permeability by ASTM C 1202 ........................................................ 10
4
2.9.2 Saltwater absorption by NCHRP 244 series II ........................................... 10
2.9.3 Chloride ion intrusion “AASHTO T259/T260” ......................................... 11
2.9.4 Freeze/thaw exposure “ASTM C666” ........................................................ 11
2.10 Tests used for evaluating the performance of crack sealers ............................... 11
2.10.1 Bond strength test ....................................................................................... 12
2.10.2 Depth of penetration test ............................................................................. 12
2.11 Previous DOTs research ..................................................................................... 12
2.11.1 Evaluation of concrete deck and crack sealers, Wisconsin DOT “Pincheira,
J. A., & Dorshorst, M. A., 2005” ............................................................................... 12
2.11.2 Alternative sealants for bridge decks, South Dakota DOT “Soriano, A.,
2002”……….. ........................................................................................................... 13
2.11.3 Investigation of concrete sealer products to extend concrete pavement life:
phase 1, Idaho DOT “Nielsen, J., Murgel, G., & Farid, A, 2011” ............................ 14
2.11.4 Crack and concrete deck sealant performance, University of Minnesota
DOT “Johnson, K., Schultz, A. E., French, C., & Reneson, J., 2009” ...................... 14
2.11.5 Effectiveness of concrete deck sealers and laminates for chloride protection
of new and in situ reinforced bridge decks in Illinois, Illinois DOT “Morse, K. L.,
2009”………… ......................................................................................................... 16
2.11.6 Evaluation of Bridge Deck Sealers, Colorado DOT “Liang, Y. C., Gallaher,
B., & Xi, Y., 2014” .................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3 Identification And Selection of Deck and Crack sealers ....................... 18
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 18
3.2 Choosing of sealers ............................................................................................ 18
3.3 Identification of sealers ...................................................................................... 20
Chapter 4 Experimental Program - Deck and Crack Sealers ................................. 24
4.1 Deck Sealers ....................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 24
4.1.2 Laboratory experimental program overview .............................................. 24
4.1.3 Description of test specimens and application of sealers ............................ 25
4.1.3.1 Concrete types ..................................................................................... 25
4.1.3.2 Casting and curing procedures ............................................................ 26
4.1.3.3 Sealers application ............................................................................... 27
4.1.4 Chloride ion intrusion test “AASHTO T259/T260” ................................... 28
4.1.4.1 Specimen preparation and ponding ..................................................... 28
4.1.4.2 Samples retrieving ............................................................................... 30
5
4.1.4.3 Equipment and reagents used .............................................................. 30
4.1.4.4 Sample decomposition ......................................................................... 31
4.1.4.5 Potentiometric titration ........................................................................ 31
4.1.4.6 Data collection ..................................................................................... 32
4.1.5 Freeze/thaw exposure “ASTM C 666” ....................................................... 34
4.1.6 Rapid permeability test “ASTM C1202” .................................................... 35
4.1.6.1 Specimen preparation .......................................................................... 35
4.1.6.2 Test Procedure ..................................................................................... 35
4.1.7 Saltwater absorption “NCHRP Report series II” ........................................ 36
4.2 Crack sealers ...................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 38
4.2.2 Laboratory test overview ............................................................................ 38
4.2.3 Description of test specimens ..................................................................... 38
4.2.4 Casting and curing ...................................................................................... 38
4.2.5 Cracking of the specimens .......................................................................... 39
4.2.5.1 Formation of crack width .................................................................... 40
4.2.6 Sealers application ...................................................................................... 41
4.2.7 Depth of penetration test ............................................................................. 41
4.2.8 Bond strength test ....................................................................................... 42
4.2.8.1 Breaking of the specimens and the loading rate .................................. 42
Chapter 5 Test Results And Discussion - Deck Sealers ........................................... 44
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 44
5.2 Rapid permeability test “ASTM C1202” ........................................................... 44
5.3 Saltwater absorption test “NCHRP report series II” .......................................... 47
5.4 Chloride ion intrusion test “AASHTO T259/T260” .......................................... 50
5.4.1 Without exposure to freeze/thaw “freeze/thaw” ......................................... 50
5.4.2 With exposure to freeze/thaw “ASTM C 666” ........................................... 52
5.5 Discussion of tests results .................................................................................. 57
5.5.1 Rapid permeability test ............................................................................... 57
5.5.2 Saltwater absorption.................................................................................... 58
5.5.3 Chloride ion intrusion test ........................................................................... 58
5.6 Sealers performance categories .......................................................................... 59
5.7 Sealers discussions ............................................................................................. 64
6
5.8 Sealers cost perspective ...................................................................................... 64
Chapter 6 Test Results And Discussion- Crack Sealers .......................................... 66
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 66
6.2 Depth of penetration test .................................................................................... 66
6.3 Bond strength test ............................................................................................... 66
6.3.1 Narrow Crack width (0.09 in.) .................................................................... 67
6.3.2 Wide Crack width (0.15 in.) ....................................................................... 69
6.4 Discussion of test results .................................................................................... 71
6.4.1 Effect of viscosity of sealers ....................................................................... 71
6.4.2 Failure mode ............................................................................................... 71
6.4.2.1 For narrow crack width (0.09 in.) ........................................................ 72
6.4.2.2 For wide crack width (0.15 in.) ........................................................... 72
6.4.3 Sealers discussion ....................................................................................... 72
6.4.4 Sealers performance evaluation .................................................................. 72
Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................... 74
7.1 Summary ............................................................................................................ 74
7.2 Deck sealers tests observations .......................................................................... 74
7.2.1 Rapid chloride permeability test ................................................................. 74
7.2.2 Saltwater absorption test ............................................................................. 75
7.2.3 Chloride ion intrusion test ........................................................................... 75
7.3 Deck sealers discussion ...................................................................................... 75
7.4 Crack sealers tests observations ......................................................................... 76
7.4.1 Depth of penetration test ............................................................................. 76
7.4.2 Bond strength test ....................................................................................... 76
7.5 Crack sealers discussion ..................................................................................... 76
7.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 77
7.7 Recommendations for future testing .................................................................. 77
References…….. .............................................................................................................. 78
Appendix A: Sample calculation for Durability Factor calculation for three
American Ready-Mix specimens ................................................................................... 81
Appendix B: Sample calculation for Durability Factor calculation for three 3D
Ready-Mix specimens ..................................................................................................... 83
7
Appendix C: Report calculation for amount of charge passed through one of the
sealers in rapid chloride permeability test for American Ready-Mix after 30
days………… ................................................................................................................... 85
Appendix D: Report calculation for amount of charge passed through one of the
sealers in rapid chloride permeability test for American Ready-Mix after 120
days………… ................................................................................................................... 86
8
List of Tables
Table 3-1: List of deck and crack sealers that were chosen before filtering .................... 19
Table 3-2: The different properties for the selected deck sealers for testing. .................. 22 Table 3-3: The different properties for the selected crack sealers for testing. ................. 23 Table 4-1 Characteristic and mix portions for one cubic feet of the American Ready-Mix
........................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 4-2 Characteristic and mix portions for one cubic feet of the 3D Ready-Mix ....... 26
Table 4-3 shows the specimens size and no. of specimens used in each test ................... 27 Table 5-1 Chloride ion penetrability according to charge passed ................................... 44 Table 5-2 Results of rapid permeability test for American Ready-Mix at both stages .... 46 Table 5-3 Results of rapid permeability test for 3D concrete at both stages ................... 46 Table 5-4 Permeability class for both concretes after 30 days of age according to the 95%
confidence interval ............................................................................................................ 47
Table 5-5 Results for the saltwater absorption test for American Ready-Mix ................. 48 Table 5-6 Results for the saltwater absorption test for 3D Ready-Mix ........................... 48 Table 5-7 Chlorides values for sealers applied on American Ready-Mix specimens not
exposed to freeze/thaw ...................................................................................................... 50 Table 5-8 chlorides values for sealers applied on 3D Ready-Mix specimens not exposed
to freeze/thaw .................................................................................................................... 51 Table 5-9 Durability factors for American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix specimens. . 53 Table 5-10 Chlorides values for sealers applied on American Ready-Mix specimens
exposed to freeze/thaw ...................................................................................................... 53 Table 5-11 Chlorides values for sealers applied on 3D Ready-Mix specimens exposed to
freeze/thaw ........................................................................................................................ 55
Table 5-12 Ratio of amount of chloride absorbed for sealers to control ponded specimens
........................................................................................................................................... 56 Table 5-13 Classification of sealers into different categories according to their
performance for American Ready-Mix ............................................................................. 61 Table 5-14 Classification of sealers into different categories according to their
performance for 3D concrete ............................................................................................ 62
Table 5-15 Total score for all the sealers ......................................................................... 63 Table 5-16 Coverage rate (ft2/gal) and cost for 5 gallons for five deck sealers ............... 65
Table 6-1 Bond strength and mode of failure for American Ready-Mix for 0.09 in. ...... 67 Table 6-2 Bond strength and mode of failure for 3D Ready-Mix for 0.09 in. ................. 68 Table 6-3 Bond strength and mode of failure for American Ready-Mix for 0.15 in. ...... 69 Table 6-4 Bond strength and mode of failure for 3D Ready-Mix for 0.15 in. ................. 70 Table 6-5 Performance evaluation of different crack sealers ........................................... 73
9
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Sealers Classification (a) Film Former coating Barrier (b) Pore Blocker (c)
Water Repellent .................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2-2 Mechanism of water and solvent based sealers ................................................ 6 Figure 3-1 Different range of viscosity for eighteen crack sealers .................................. 21 Figure 4-1 Quality control tests for concrete (a) Slump test (b) Air content test ............ 26 Figure 4-2 Application of sealers in flume hood ............................................................. 27
Figure 4-3 (a) Specimen before sandblasting (b) Specimen after sandblasting .............. 28 Figure 4-4 Expanded foam around the edge of the specimen .......................................... 29 Figure 4-5 Specimens with saltwater solution covered with plastic covers .................... 29 Figure 4-6 Locations of holes in a specimen ................................................................... 30 Figure 4-7 Samples after being acidic with nitric acid and methyl orange indicator ...... 31
Figure 4-8 Electrode-burette-millivolt meter used for chloride ion analysis titration ..... 32
Figure 4-9 Two titration curves for two samples from the same hole ............................. 33 Figure 4-10 Two titration curves for two samples from the same hole ........................... 33 Figure 4-11 Sample titration curve for unsealed specimen.............................................. 34
Figure 4-12 Rapid chloride permeability test setup ......................................................... 36 Figure 4-13 (a) Typical tested specimen (b) Rapid chloride permeability test setup ...... 36
Figure 4-14 Immersion of specimens in a plastic bucket filled with water ..................... 37 Figure 4-15 Notches in the upper and lower surface of the specimens ........................... 39 Figure 4-16 Test setup used for cracking the specimens ................................................. 39
Figure 4-17 Specimens clamped to form the required width ........................................... 40 Figure 4-18 Specimens after being sealed with silicone caulk ........................................ 41
Figure 4-19 Cross section of a specimen filled with crack sealer .................................... 42
Figure 4-20 Setup used to test the bond strength of the crack sealer specimens ............. 42
Figure 5-1 Mean and 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix specimens after
30 days .............................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 5-2 Mean and 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens after 30
days ................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 5-3 Mean Weight and 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix
specimens .......................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 5-4 Mean Weight and 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens ... 48
Figure 5-5 SAR% for deck sealers applied on (a) American Ready-Mix (b) 3D Ready-
Mix .................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 5-6 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure to
freeze/thaw cycles ............................................................................................................. 51 Figure 5-7 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure to
freeze/thaw cycles ............................................................................................................. 52 Figure 5-8 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure
to freeze/thaw cycles ......................................................................................................... 54 Figure 5-9 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure to
freeze/thaw cycles ............................................................................................................. 54
10
Figure 5-10 Ratio of chlorides absorbed for the five sealers with the ponded control
specimen for American Ready-Mix .................................................................................. 56 Figure 5-11 Ratio of chlorides absorbed for the five sealers with the ponded control
specimen for 3D Ready-Mix ............................................................................................. 57
Figure 5-12 Graph for the total score and comparison between all the sealers ............... 63 Figure 6-1 Full penetration for a crack sealer in a crack of (a) 0.09 in (b) 0.15 in .......... 66 Figure 6-2 Modes failures for crack sealers (a) Concrete Failure (b) Interface Failure (c)
Concrete and Sealer failure ............................................................................................... 67 Figure 6-3 Bond strength for American Ready-Mix for 0.09 in. ..................................... 68
Figure 6-4 Bond strength for 3D Ready-Mix for 0.09 in. ................................................ 69 Figure 6-5 Bond strength for American Ready-Mix for 0.15 in. ..................................... 70 Figure 6-6 Bond strength for 3D Concrete for 0.15 in. .................................................... 71
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Infrastructure deterioration is a severe problem in the United States. In the winter when
snow and ice start to accumulate on bridge decks, deicing salts are spread on the bridge
desks to dissolve the snow and ice. Deicing salts are mixtures of sodium and calcium
chlorides. Bridge deck concrete often has cracks. These cracks provide ingress for
chloride ions to the reinforcement of the deck. When these salts react with ice, it starts to
melt forming a chloride solution that penetrates through the cracks and pores in the
concrete. The chloride solution causes corrosion in steel reinforcement. The corrosion
increases the volume of steel reinforcement causing more cracks in the concrete, which
allows more chlorides to penetrate through these cracks. Different values have been
assigned that represent the level of chloride at which corrosion and deterioration occurs.
Factors affecting the variation of these values include concrete mix design such as
(water/cement ratios, admixtures, air content, supplemental material usage, density and
age), coverage depths, type of reinforcing steel, use of epoxy coatings and other
construction factors.In addition, the amount of carbonation and resultant change in the pH
of the concrete affects the corrosion of concrete and reinforcing steel. These values are
reported for corrosion; 1.2 lbs/yd3 (315 ppm) is the level where the chlorides start to
initiate corrosion, 3.0 lbs/yd3 (790 ppm) is the amount of chloride that accelerate
corrosion and >7.0 lbs/yd3 (1840 ppm) is the level that causes major corrosion and loss
in the steel section . These values are calculated according to an average density of
concrete of 3,800 lbs/yd3 (Newman, 2001).
Chloride ions can penetrate through the concrete in three different ways. First is capillary
absorption which occurs when the concrete surface is subjected to continuous wetting and
drying cycles. When chloride solution hits dry pavement it starts to penetrate into the
pore structure of the concrete through capillary suction. Second is the hydrostatic
pressure which is very rare on bridge structures, and this occur on concrete structures that
are hydraulic or situated in the ocean under a hydrostatic pressure. The third method is
diffusion and this is the most common and familiar method for chloride ion penetration.
In order to reduce these chlorides ingress in the concrete, deck and crack sealers are
applied on the surface of the bridge deck. These sealers could be applied on a new
constructed bridge as well as sealing existing cracks in a bridge deck to prevent chloride
ion intrusion. Many concrete bridge decks in the United States are exposed to early age
cracks within a short period of time after construction such as shrinkage cracks (Krauss
and Rogalla, 1996). Crack sealers are usually used to penetrate, and seal an existing
crackto prevent chloride ion ingress. These sealers are expected to seal fine cracks in a
deck by creating an isolation layer that prevents saltwater solution from entering the
concrete. Also, they must be able to withstand crack opening and closing due to thermal
effects and deck movements. Currently available crack sealers products composed of
three main chemical families which are High Molecular Weight Methacrylates (HMWM)
resins, epoxy resins, and urethane resins among others. Deck sealers products are based
2
on silane or siloxane and can either be water based or solvent. Deck sealers are used over
the entire deck and help to prevent chloride intrusion over the entire surface and small
cracks. Each sealer has specific properties to deal with specific problems.
1.2 Research objective
Nevada Department of Transportation “NDOT” currently utilizes overlays to repair deck
and to seal decks, but effective use of sealers and deck treatments could delay overlays,
save costs, and extend bridge deck life. The primary objective of the project was to
develop a bridge deck guide for using deck and crack sealers. The primary focus of this
research is to take the best practice from other states and determine the best
implementation plan for the Nevada DOT and other states with similar climates such as
New Mexico and Arizona. This could done by assess the effectiveness and performance
of some of the commercially available deck and crack sealers.
1.3 Research plan
In order to achieve the research objective, previous research that was done on deck and
crack sealers by other universities and states DOTs was studied. Then, an experimental
program was developed that included different types of specimens and two different
concretes that are available in Reno, NV: American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix.
After that, sealers were identified and classified according to their properties and
chemical family. Five sealers were chosen and were applied on the specimens in order to
test them under different circumstances. Three experimental tests were conducted here at
UNR on deck sealer specimens, and one was conducted in a company in Denver,
Colorado and completed at UNR. For crack sealers, two tests were conducted here at
UNR. All the tests were conducted according to ASTM, and AASHTO specs, and
NCHRP Report
series II and IV.
After all the tests were finished, the results were analyzed. A comparison was made
between the sealers according to their performance, the sealers were assigned into three
different categories, and each category has its own weighting score according to some
statistical analysis “95% confidence interval”. Finally, a recommendation was developed
for the best-performed sealers and their chemical properties and family, so that sealers
with similar chemical family and properties could be used on a new constructed bridge or
an existing structure. The report is divided into different chapters. Chapter 2 discuss the
literature review, the background of sealers, and the previous studies on sealers by other
states DOTs. Chapter 3 is the identification and classification of sealers. Chapter 4
discuss the experimental work that was done. Chapter 5 and 6 discuss the test results and
describes the recommendations for using deck and crack sealers. Finally, chapter 7 is the
summary and conclusions for the report.
3
Chapter 2 Background/Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the characteristic of deck and crack sealers and the different tests that
were conducted on deck and crack sealers for evaluating their performance will be
discussed. Moreover, a summary of different Department of Transportation (DOT)
research on evaluating deck and crack sealers is presented.
2.2 Sealers background
The usage of sealers are so beneficial on extending the service life of concrete bridge
decks. Sealers help to prevent deterioration in the concrete and corrosion of the steel
reinforcement. Corrosion of steel reinforcing results in expansion in concrete that causes
cracking in the concrete as well as deterioration in steel and reduction in its area. These
deicing salts are composed of different chemicals such as sodium chloride, calcium
chloride, and magnesium chloride. In the winter, ice and snow could be melted by using
deicing salts. As ice melts, it starts to react with the chlorides in the salts forming chloride
solutions that penetrate through the concrete causing corrosion in the steel reinforcement
and deterioration in the concrete. Water can penetrate the concrete through pores or void
spaces by capillary action, and diffusion or most directly from seepage into surface
cracks (Nielsen, J., Murgel, G., & Farid, A., 2011). Moisture inside the crack can cause
damage to the concrete in the winter due to freezing and thawing cycles. When entrapped
water in the crack converts to ice, its volume increase and hence this increase the volume
of the concrete by 9% causing forces inside the concrete that leads to cracks in the
concrete affecting the concrete durability. As chloride content increase, the risk of
corrosion of reinforcement and deterioration in concrete increase. When the chloride
content at the surface of the steel exceeds a certain limit, called the threshold value,
corrosion will occur in the presence of water and oxygen. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) studies found that a beginning limit of 0.20% total acid-soluble
chloride by weight of cement could stimulate corrosion of steel reinforcement in bridge
decks (Clear 1976). Work at the FHWA (Clear, K. C., & Hay, R. E., 1973) found that a
range from 0.35 to 0.90 is the conversion factor from acid-soluble to water-soluble
chlorides depending on the constituents of the concrete.
Limiting chloride ingress into concrete can extend the service life for bridge decks and
enhance the deck durability. For new constructed bridges, the deck can be sealed with
deck sealers immediately after construction to prevent the accumulation of chlorides, and
to decrease the moisture penetration into the concrete preventing the formation of cracks
due to the volumetric changes of the confined water in the pores. For existing bridges, the
deck can be sealed to reduce the amount of chlorides that could be added to the already
existing chlorides.
4
The following sections in this chapter define the classification for sealers and the primary
main properties of the sealer. Further, a brief review is provided for the tests that will be
used in evaluating the performance of the sealers.
2.3 Sealers classification
Concrete sealers are usually classified either a film formers or penetrating sealers.
Penetrating sealers typically are classified as pore blocker or water repellent (Nielsen, J.,
Murgel, G., & Farid, A., 2011) Figure 2-1 shows the different sealers classification.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2-1 Sealers Classification (a) Film Former coating Barrier (b) Pore Blocker (c)
Water Repellent
2.3.1 Film formers “Barrier coating”
Film formers sealers are compounds with generally high molecular weight and high
viscosity that would not be able to penetrate through the concrete decks. The main
difference between film formers sealers and penetrating sealers is that penetrating sealers
have low viscosity that allows them to “penetrate” into the concrete while a film former
sealer forms an insulation layer over the surface. Film forming sealers can be used for
sealing cracks in concrete as they could penetrate through large cracks. Examples of these
compounds are linseed oil, epoxies and methacrylates. Their performance is reduced with
time because of vehicle abrasion on the concrete deck. Very small aggregate can be
placed on the top of these sealers to increase the skid resistance and hence enhance the
friction between the vehicle and the sealers surface.
2.3.2 Pore blocker
Pore blockers are compounds that have low viscosity and small molecular size, so they
could penetrate through the pores of concrete without leaving a measurable depth as a
surface coating. Examples include lithium or sodium silicates and linseed oil in solvent.
These silicates can be used to reduce the capillary suction for the pores.
5
2.3.3 Water repellent
Water repellent are a second type of penetrating sealers. When this type of sealers react
with the cement paste, a coating is formed along the interior wall of the pores inside the
concrete. This coating has a surface tension lower than the surface tension of chlorides,
and this lead to reducing the penetration of chlorides into the pores. Examples of these
compounds are silanes and siloxanes.
2.4 Water-based sealers and solvent-based sealers
Lowering volatile organic compound (VOC) content has been a popular topic lately,
largely due to increasingly restrictive regulations across the country requiring lower VOC
levels in various paint and coatings applications.
Concrete sealers are either are a water-based variety “lower VOC” or a solvent-based
“high VOC”. Both water and solvent-based sealers act as a protective topcoats for
concrete and are applied to the concrete surface after completing the curing process. The
carrying agent of silane products can have a significant effect on the performance of the
sealer. Solvent-based silanes are more commonly used than their water-based
counterparts. This is because solvent-based products penetrate deeper into the concrete
bridge deck. Many studies in the literature review support this notion (Pincheira 2005).
In the case of a water-based sealer, the polymer particles are scattered in water. When the
sealer is applied to concrete, the water evaporates and the polymer particles move closer
together and by continuing evaporation, the polymer particles begin to merge together,
forming the coating.
With a solvent-based sealer, it is kind of different than water-based sealers where
polymers are not scattered as separate particles, but the polymer and solvent form a
continuous, clear polymer solution. When solvent evaporates from a solvent-based sealer,
the polymer chains are fuse and entangle together. For both water- and solvent-based
sealers, the water or the solvent evaporate and only the polymer remains on the concrete
surface and this cause a shiny surface for the concrete.
(http://www.concreteconstruction.net).
The appearance of water-based and solvent-based sealers after application and curing
helps to distinguish between the two classifications of sealers. Solvent-based sealers
usually penetrate concrete surfaces very well that result in a shining finish. Water-based
sealers appear milky white after application and the polymer particles in the sealer scatter
impact the visible light differently than the water in which they are scattered in. After
curing, water-based sealers do not seem too glossier compared to solvent based sealer.
The finished performance properties of both type of sealers are similar and provide a long
lasting good protection to newly finished or aged concrete surfaces. Water-based sealers
are a good choice for the demand of a low-VOC, high-performance concrete sealer that is
durable and easy to work with. Figure 2-2 shows the difference between water-based
sealers and solvent-based sealers.
6
Figure 2-2 Mechanism of water and solvent based sealers
From previous research and studies, the average solvent-based silane products had larger
depths of penetration than water-based or siloxane products. The depth of penetration of
solvent-based products ranged between 1.8 mm and 3.8 mm, while for water-based
products their penetration depths range from 1.4 mm to 2.1 mm. When not exposed to
freeze/thaw cycles, solvent-based products perform better than water-based products in
reducing the ingress of chloride ions. When exposed to freeze/thaw cycles there was no
clear difference between the performances of solvent-based and water-based. (Pincheira,
J. A., & Dorshorst, M. A., 2005).
2.5 Deck sealers chemical family
The following subsections provide a brief review for the different chemical families of
deck and crack sealers. The properties of these chemical families affect the performance
of the sealer.
2.5.1 Linseed oil
Boiled linseed oil is an effective and affordable concrete floor sealer. Boiled linseed oil
can be bought as linseed oil-mineral spirit compound or linseed oil emulsion. Linseed oil
has many benefits such as sealing the moisture and making the concrete harder. Also, it
lowers pH if used in new concrete floors.
Boiled linseed oil treated with mineral spirits can be used in many application such as
treating new or old concrete floor, roads, sidewalks, curbs, parking ramps, floor,
walkways, bridge decks and other similar concrete applications.
http://www.concreteconstruction.net
7
Nowadays, linseed oil is not classified or used as a penetrating sealer because it has a
high molecular size and viscosity than does not allow its penetration into the pores of
concrete. Therefore, it could be used as a temporary surface sealer.
2.5.2 Silanes and Siloxanes
Silanes and siloxanes are the most common penetrating sealers, and both of them are
derived from the silicone family. Despite having the same chemical family, they have
different performance. Silanes require a high pH to catalyze, while siloxanes are not
dependent on substrate pH. This make siloxanes ideal for treating stucco, brick, and
stone. Silanes are made up of molecules smaller than the molecules of siloxanes, and this
make silanes penetrate deeper into the concrete than siloxanes. As a result, silanes give a
better performance under abrasion and weathering. Because of this small molecular size
of silanes, they are relatively volatile. Therefore, to compensate for the loss of
evaporation of the reactive material during both application and curing, the solids content
of a silane product should be high enough to reduce evaporation. Siloxanes, because they
are less volatile, generally offer good water repellent performance at lower initial cost
than do silanes. For concrete surfaces subjected to abrasive wear such as pavements and
decks, treatment with a silane sealer will provide longer lasting protection. Regarding the
color of the surface, treatment with silane sealers typically could not be detected by
visual inspection.
Products with 100 percent solids have no carrying agent. Tests conducted on these
products indicate slight advantages with an increased amount of solids. A test by
(Soriano, 2002) showed that 100 percent silane absorbed slightly less water than the 40
percent silane products analyzed. Also, products with higher percent solids have larger
penetration depth. (Basheer, 1998, and Soriano, 2002) all demonstrated 100 percent
silanes to penetrate slightly deeper than 40 percent silanes.
In general, silane products are more commonly used than silane. This is most probably
due to the lower performance of siloxane compared to the silane products.
2.6 Crack sealers chemical family
2.6.1 Epoxies
Epoxy sealers form a good protective film on the concrete surface, producing a finish that
is hard, and effective against long-wearing and abrasion. They are also excellent water
repellents. Epoxy sealer are used either in a flood coat as deck sealers or to seal
individual cracks. The choice between sealing the entire deck (flood coat) and sealing
individual cracks depends on the severity, amount of cracks and the state’s preference.
Most products impart a specular finish. Epoxy sealers are much harder than acrylics.
Water-based epoxies adhere well to concrete and provide a clear finish. Moreover, water-
based epoxies are nonporous so they do not allow moisture inside to escape so they
should not be applied to surfaces that have any moisture problem. Most epoxies are
8
composed of two component products that are mixed together before application on
concrete surface and then rolled onto concrete. One of the drawbacks of epoxies is that
that they require more deck preparation, long cure time, and the installation process is
somewhat confusing and time consuming. They do last longer than an acrylic; there for a
longer time is needed before they need to be reapplied.
Two laboratory studies by (Pincheira 2005, Sprinkel 1995) found that epoxy sealers were
able to penetrate more into the entire depth. However, field studies demonstrated that the
penetration depths of epoxy sealers were highly variable. Meggers (1998) found that two
High Molecular Weight Methacrylate (HMWM) sealers penetrated deeper than the epoxy
sealer studied. HMWN will be described in the next subsection.
In a study by Pincheira (2005) for Wisconsin DOT, he found that an epoxy sealer had
the highest bond strength for hairline cracks (1/32 in.) and medium cracks (1/8 in.).
While for wide cracks (1/5 in.), an epoxy and HMWM sealer performed the best.
Pincheira noted that the epoxy and HMWM sealer exhibited poor freeze/thaw resistance.
He recommended using the epoxy resin as Sikadur 55 SLV for the three-crack sizes.
2.6.2 High Molecular Weight Methacrylate
High molecular weight methacrylate (HMWM) is a monomer that has many of the
characteristics and advantages of methyl methacrylate (MMA), such as the low viscosity,
and the ability for curing over a wide range of temperatures. HMWM has low odor and a
high flash point, which make it better than MMA. HMWM sealers are usually applied
using a flood coat, which is spread over the entire deck because of their low viscosity that
make them penetrate deeper into the cracks.
HMWM has an excellent performance for mechanical and durability properties and they
bond well to the concrete. Also, it has been used to produce polymer concrete for
overlays and other specialty applications.
. Due to the low viscosity of HMWM, it can penetrate very fine cracks as stated in many
studies before (Pincheira 2005, Sprinkel 1995). HMWM has been used in many
applications in the states especially for sealing cracks in bridges. The researchers noted
that HMWM has been used widely in the United States including California, Kansas and
Iowa by a lot of states DOT.
(Johnson, K., Schultz, A. E., French, C., & Reneson, J., 2009) condcted a survey and
stated that HMWM sealers are the second most commonly used sealers by DOTs after
epoxies, because of their low viscosity and their ability to penetrate deeper through the
cracks. Some laboratory tests have found that the HMWM sealers were able to penetrate
through the whole depth of the crack (Pincheira 2005, Sprinkel 1995). HMWM sealers
penetrated deeper into cracks than epoxy sealers (Meggers 1998).
Through chloride ingress and corrosion laboratory testing on reinforced concrete
samples, Meggers (1998) tested three HMWM sealers applied on reinforced concrete
samples by chloride ingress laboratory tests, and found that these three sealers could
protect the bridge for about eight, nine, and 11 years. The protection period of epoxy
sealers was found to be 15 years.
9
2.7 Application procedures
In this section, the application procedures for both deck and crack sealers will be
discussed according to what has been implemented in different states. Generally, deck
and crack sealers are applied in a temperature range of 45F to 100F as specified by
almost all the states.
2.7.1 Deck sealers
Before applying the deck sealers, the bridge has to be cleaned from any materials. This
surface preparation is done by mainly two methods: sand/shot blasting or high water
pressure. The contractors prefer to use the shot/sand blasting on bridges that have leftover
curing compounds or overlays. The high-pressure water could be used but the deck has to
left for two days drying period before applying the sealers. Also, compressed air could be
used in the cleaning process but it is not a common method. On newly constructed
bridge, no cleaning is required unless there are any dust or materials on the surface. There
are different ways to apply the sealers over the bridge deck, such as spray bar mounted on
the back of a truck, or by tank sprayer, roller, and brooms. Sealers are usually applied
with two coats.
2.7.2 Crack sealers
The application of crack sealers is somewhat similar to deck sealers and includes
cleaning the crack from any dust or any residual materials. The cleaning process could be
done by either a shot/sand blasting or high water pressure or air pressure. Using sand/shot
blasting is more familiar to contractors and more common in most of the states (Johnson,
K., Schultz, A. E., French, C., & Reneson, J., 2009). Applying the crack sealer could be
done by flooding a coat over the surface as deck sealers; this is done in the case of large
number of cracks. It can also be applied by sealing individual cracks; this is done in case
of having a limited number of cracks. Brooms or rollers do flood coat over the entire
deck while sealing individual cracks is done by using handheld bottles or wheel carts.
Drying period of two days are usually used in cases where moisture is present.
2.8 Time of applying the sealers
2.8.1 Deck sealers
Applying deck sealers immediately after construction is beneficial to reduce the ingress
of chlorides from the early service life of the bridge. In a newly constructed bridge, the
existing amount of chlorides is very low, so applying the sealers from the beginning will
enhance in reducing future chloride in the concrete. Usually deck sealers are reapplied
10
over the bridge deck after three to five years. Most of the states reapply the deck sealers
after three to five years from applying.
2.8.2 Crack sealers
Time of application of crack sealers is different from deck sealers. Crack sealers are
applied to a bridge due to the existence of cracks. Applying crack sealers immediately
after construction is typically due to early age cracks caused by shrinkage of the concrete.
For instance, Nebraska DOT applies a polymer sealer over the entire deck after the
construction of any new bridge. The main purpose of this polymer sealer is to seal any
early age cracks that could be formed on the deck surface. It was found that this polymer
is very beneficial in extending the service life of bridge deck. (Johnson, K., Schultz, A.
E., French, C., & Reneson, J., 2009).
2.9 Tests used for evaluating the performance of deck sealers
In this section, an overview is provided for the different laboratory tests that have been
used in evaluating the performance of the deck sealers.
2.9.1 Rapid permeability by ASTM C 1202
The rapid permeability test method covers the determination of the electrical conductance
of concrete to provide a rapid indication of its resistance to the penetration of chloride
ions.
This test method consists of calculating the amount of electrical current passed through
50-mm thick slices of 100-mm nominal diameter cores or cylinders during a 6-h period.
This test method determines the electrical conductance of concrete samples to provide a
rapid indication of their resistance to chloride ion penetration by calculating the amount
of charge passed through the concrete.
2.9.2 Saltwater absorption by NCHRP 244 series II
The saltwater absorption test determine the ability of the sealers to reduce the chloride
ingress by calculating the change of weight that occurs in the concrete specimens before
and after immersion in a sodium chloride solution; this test is based on the NCHRP 244
testing series II. All samples were tested for 7-days, 14-days, and 21-days saltwater
absorption. The weight of each sample (Wi0) was measured before immersion in the
solution. Samples were then immersed in 15 percent (by weight) sodium chloride
solution maintained at laboratory temperatures and then weighed at 7-days, 14-days, and
21-days. Further details for the procedure of the test and calculation of SAR (Saltwater
absorption ratio) are discussed in (section 4.1.7).
11
2.9.3 Chloride ion intrusion “AASHTO T259/T260”
The chloride ion intrusion test determines the ability of concrete and sealers in resisting
the chloride ion ingress into the concrete. There are many factors that could affect the
results slightly such as changes in the cement type and content, water/cement ratio,
aggregate type and proportions, admixtures, treatments, curing and consolidation.
The standard describes the procedures for preparing the concrete specimens, including
the application of concrete sealers. After applying the sealer, specimens are roughened by
using sand blasting to simulate wear from vehicular traffic. Abrasion is not required and
is neglected if the concrete or treatment is to be used on surface not subjected to vehicular
wear. Dams are placed around the top edge of the specimens to be able to hold the water
inside for 90 days of continuous ponding of a deicing solution. Following to the ponding
stage, the specimens are wire brushed to remove any salts on the surface.
The procedures includes sample preparation, sample retrieving and the decomposition of
concrete powder for determination of the chloride ion content. Equations for calculating
the chloride ingress percent are presented in the AASHTO standards. This test method
does not give an indication about the service life that could be expected from the tested
concrete. More details for the procedures of this test will be discussed later in (section
4.1.4).
2.9.4 Freeze/thaw exposure “ASTM C666”
The ASTM C 666 test method determines the resistance of concrete specimens to rapidly
repeating cycles of freezing and thawing in the laboratory. This test procedure can be
used to determine the performance of the concrete and its resistance to freeze and thaw
cycles. However, the test method is not intended to provide a quantitative measure of the
length of service that may be expected from a particular type of concrete (Pincheira,
Dorshorst, 2005). Two procedures can be used in this test: Procedure A - Rapid Freezing
and Thawing in Water, and Procedure B - Rapid Freezing in Air and Thawing in Water.
The specimens have to be completely surrounded by water during the thawing phase in
both procedures. The only difference is for Procedure B specimens are surrounded only
by air during the freezing phase of the cycle, while for Procedure A, specimens are
surrounded by water during the freezing phase. Procedure A is better for tests relating to
concrete bridge decks, to simulate actual decks that will usually be covered with ice
“water” while they undergo freezing and thawing (Pincheira, Dorshorst, 2005).
2.10 Tests used for evaluating the performance of crack sealers
In this section, an overview is provided for the different laboratory tests that has been
used in evaluating the performance of the crack sealers.
12
2.10.1 Bond strength test
There are no standard methods for determining the bond strength for crack sealers. A test
was done that is similar to ASTM C 496 “A standard test for determining the splitting
tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens”. The test was applied by forming
notches in the upper and lower surface of the specimens and then by putting two steel
rods over the tested crack filled with sealer and then breaking it with the compressive
strength test machine until failure. The applied load could be the strength of the sealer if
the failure occurs in the sealers but it could be the strength of the specimen if the failure
occur in the interface or in the concrete as will be shown later. The test was terminated
the load dropped to 20% of the maximum load. Further details for the procedure of
forming the cracks and determining the bond strength of the sealers are discussed in
(section 4.2.8).
2.10.2 Depth of penetration test
The depth of penetration test is used to determine the ability of the sealers to penetrate
through the crack depth with the required width of cracks. This test was conducted by
visual inspection. If the sealer has a high viscosity, it will not penetrate sufficiently into
the crack.
2.11 Previous DOTs research
Several Department of Transportations (DOTs) or universities have studied and
conducted research on sealers, and studied the performance and the effective of different
types of deck and crack sealers either through some laboratory or field tests. In this
section, the conclusions of previous DOT research will be discussed.
2.11.1 Evaluation of concrete deck and crack sealers, Wisconsin DOT
“Pincheira, J. A., & Dorshorst, M. A., 2005”
In this research, the main objective was to assess the performance of some of the
commercially available concrete bridge deck and crack sealers. Thirteen deck sealers and
ten crack sealers were chosen for this study. Two different laboratory tests, chloride ion
intrusion test “90 days ponding” and depth of penetration test were used. Establishing a
relationship between depth of penetration of the sealer and its performance in resisting
the chloride ion intrusion was an objective in this research.
The study on crack sealers included a bond strength test and depth of penetration test.
The deck and crack sealers were assigned into different categories according to their
performance and compared. Sealers were assigned to category I, II, and III. I for the best
performance, II for the moderate performance, and III for the least performance.
13
Main findings for deck sealers
Silane products that are solvent based penetrated deeper than water-
based or siloxane products. The depth of penetration of solvent-based
products ranged between 1.8 mm and 3.8 mm; water-based products had
penetration depths ranging from 1.4 mm to 2.1 mm.
When not exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, the performance of solvent-
based products in reducing the penetration of chloride ions was better
than water-based products. Under exposure to freeze/thaw cycles, the
performances of solvent- and water-based are not clearly differentiated
Exposure to freeze/thaw cycles decreased the performance of most of
the sealers in reducing chloride ion ingress.
Main findings for crack sealers
All sealers studied penetrated through the full depth of the crack.
For most sealers, the bond strength decreased, by increasing the crack
width, and with exposure to freeze/thaw cycles.
Sealers had similar performance for different crack width i.e., crack
width did not have a dramatically effect on the performance of the
sealer.
2.11.2 Alternative sealants for bridge decks, South Dakota DOT
“Soriano, A., 2002”
The South Dakota DOT (SCDOT) project investigated concrete bridge deck crack and
surface sealers, and their optimum application timing. The main objectives of this project
were to determine if there were products that could give better performance than the
products that SDDOT was using (i.e. linseed oil sealer and epoxy crack sealer) and
determining the optimum time for applying the sealers.
Main findings for deck and crack sealers
Application of crack and deck sealers after chloride ingress is not
essential in extending bridge deck service lives, while slowing additional
chloride and water penetration into the concrete could provide additional
life to older bridges.
Treating older bridge decks is not effective as treating these bridges
prior to chloride ingress.
Crack and deck sealers with viscosities less than 15 cp (centipoise) had
good penetration (i.e. = 0.10 in.) into cracks and deck surface
Linseed oil should be categorized as a membrane sealer not as a
penetrating sealer because its molecular size is larger than the concrete
pore openings.
14
2.11.3 Investigation of concrete sealer products to extend concrete
pavement life: phase 1, Idaho DOT “Nielsen, J., Murgel, G., &
Farid, A, 2011”
For the Idaho DOT study, five deck sealers were evaluated in the laboratory for different
properties such as water vapor transmission, saltwater absorption, alkali resistance, depth
of penetration, UV exposure and cyclic saltwater ponding, chloride content, and
freeze/thaw resistance. The five treatments are silane, high molecular weight
methacrylate (HMWM), epoxy, silane basecoat/HMWM topcoat, and silane
basecoat/epoxy top coat. These sealers were applied in four different locations in
Southwestern Idaho to initiate a long-term (four year) field evaluation of the treatments.
According to the laboratory tests, the combination of silane basecoat and epoxy or
HMWM topcoat gave the best performance among the tested sealers. Some tests were
conducted between the five concrete sealer treatments and control samples to assess their
performance. The tests were selected to simulate conditions similar to conditions that
exist in Idaho such as UV exposure, freeze/thaw cycling and exposure to two different
roadway deicing salts. Moreover, the same sealers were applied in the field at four sites
in Southwestern Idaho to determine the long-term performance of the sealers.
Main findings for deck and crack sealers
Dual treatment systems consisting of both silane as a base coat and an
epoxy or HMWM as a top coat exhibited the best performance among
the tested sealers for sealing decks and existing cracks.
If the concrete pavement or bridge deck does not transmit water vapor
through control surfaces then it is recommended to have a silane or a
sealer that allows at least 35% of water vapor transmission relative to
control samples.
2.11.4 Crack and concrete deck sealant performance, University of
Minnesota DOT “Johnson, K., Schultz, A. E., French, C., &
Reneson, J., 2009”
The objective of the Minnesota DOT project was to provide a guide regarding the use of
bridge deck and crack sealers to extend the life of concrete bridge decks. The report
studied the previous studies by other universities and DOTs, and a survey that focused on
up to date studies in the field of deck and crack sealers. The main purpose of the survey
was to determine common practices for using and applying these sealers in different
States. Based on the performance of the sealers and the information collected from the
previous studies and the survey, the best sealers and application practices were
recommended for use in Minnesota and throughout the Midwest.
Main findings for deck sealers
Based on the information from the literature review and the survey
studied, silanes usually perform better than siloxanes in chloride ingress
15
reduction and in penetration depth into the concrete; this may be because
of the smaller molecular size of silanes than siloxanes.
Solvent-based sealers tend to perform better than water-based sealers in
both penetration depth into concrete and chloride ingress reduction.
For a given type of carrying agent either solvent or water, products with
higher solid content (i.e. 100% vs 40% solid content) gave a better
performance in penetration and chloride ingress reduction than products
with lower solids contents.
The temperature of applying the sealers usually ranges from 40°F to
100°F Also, if there is any rainfall or the surface was cleaned by water,
two days should be allowed for drying before applying the sealers.
Water-based products are not suitable for reapplication.
Main findings for crack sealers
Before applying the sealers, the cracks have to be cleaned and washed
from any contaminated materials inside. The cleaning process could be
either by power washers or by a compressed air. Although, two days as a
drying period should be allowed for drying the crack and the surface
before applying the sealers in case of using water in cleaning the surface,
and three days drying period in case of any rainfalls.
The laboratory studies found that all the sealers were able to penetrate
into the whole crack depth in the concrete. For field investigation methyl
methacrylate and HMWM, sealers gave the best performance in
penetrating the whole crack depth. Krauss (1985) documented a case
that an epoxy sealer failed to penetrate through the whole crack depth
and after the failure, a HMWM was tested and was able to seal and
penetrate through the whole depth. Meggers (1998) also conducted a
study about the depth of penetration of HMWM and epoxy sealers and
found that HMWM could penetrate deeper into the concrete that the
epoxies.
HMWM products are typically applied in a flood coat as deck sealers
and epoxy products are generally applied to individual cracks. This
means the extent of cracking, the number of cracks on the bridge deck,
and their conditions are the main factors in determining whether to apply
the sealers in a flood coat or to individual cracks. Flood coat for huge
amount of cracks and applying the sealers to individual cracks for small
number of cracks on the bridge Meggers (1998) suggests that crack
sealers should have a viscosity lower than 500 cP, tensile strength above
eight MPa, and tensile elongation greater than 10 percent.
16
2.11.5 Effectiveness of concrete deck sealers and laminates for chloride
protection of new and in situ reinforced bridge decks in Illinois,
Illinois DOT “Morse, K. L., 2009”
The Illinois DOT research project developed a study to assess the performance of
concrete sealer and effect of laminate in protecting bridge deck concrete from chloride
ion ingress. The study included the criteria for choosing products for evaluation, sample
locations, sample depths, and duration of study. The results showed and explained the
relative effectiveness of the various sealers and laminates and the durability of the studied
products. The results for the durability study and the cost of each product was used to
develop a relation between the cost and effectiveness for all the products.
Main findings for deck sealers
Protective coat gave a better performance than all silanes and siloxanes.
Dual treatment of both silane and siloxane together performed better
than silanes and siloxanes alone.
Water-based products may need to be used if environmental restrictions
are present since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed a
VOC limits to 5 pounds per gallon or 600 grams per liter. The majority
of the products evaluated were below the currently proposed limits (400
g/L) for waterproofing concrete/masonry sealers.
2.11.6 Evaluation of Bridge Deck Sealers, Colorado DOT “Liang, Y. C.,
Gallaher, B., & Xi, Y., 2014”
The Colorado DOT studied and evaluated the performance of deck sealers that are
commonly used on bridge deck in the state. After reviewing the most recent research
findings on deck sealers used by state DOTs, four sealer products were selected, that
could be used by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), to assess their
performance from different perspective. The performance was determined for a high
molecular weight methacrylate (HMWM), two epoxies, and a silane for skid resistance,
and their ability to reduce moisture and chloride ion penetration into concrete bridge
decks. Four experimental parameters were chosen for conducting field tests on the
selected sealers: skid resistance, temperature variation, moisture fluctuation, and chloride
concentration profiles in concrete. Bridge structure E-17-QM (westbound US 36 to I-270
over I-25) was selected for the field study. Professional contractors installed the four
sealers on the deck surface of Bridge E- 17-QM. The four sealers used in this study were:
High molecular weight methacrylate (HMWM) - Sika Pronto 19- HMWM
(2 components);
Epoxy 1- Super low viscosity, low modulus epoxy;
Epoxy 2 - Low Viscosity, high modulus epoxy.
Silane - Tamms Baracade 244-Silane Sealer.
17
Eighteen integrated sensors were installed in the bridge decks in the five testing sections
and at different depths for monitoring the internal temperature and relative humidity
distributions in concrete. Concrete cores were taken at four periods during the project to
test them for chloride ion ingress. The British Pendulum Tester (BPT) was used to
measure the skid resistance of the concrete surface with and without sealers. The
performances of the four sealers were ranked, according to their performance in the tests,
from the four experimental parameters and cost perspective. A-Skid resistance, B-Internal
temperature, C-Internal relative humidity, D- Chloride penetration, E-Cost
Main findings for deck sealers
The sealers skid resistance for sealers were reduced compared to the
control deck. After one year, most of sealers have lower skid resistance
than the control deck, except the silane.
Sealers applied on concrete decks generated higher temperature
gradients in the decks than that of control decks; this increase in
temperature gradient due to all sealers is very small and not effective in
causing any deterioration in the concrete.
No new moisture penetration was recorded into the concrete deck during
the eight-month period. This gave an indication that the sealers were
effective in blocking the moisture movement into and out of the concrete
decks.
18
Chapter 3 Identification And Selection of Deck and
Crack sealers
3.1 Introduction
This chapter includes the identification, review of different types of deck and crack
sealers and also it includes the selection of the deck and crack sealers that were tested in
this research. The selection depends on different criteria that will be discussed in this
chapter. The selected deck and crack sealers have been approved to be tested by NDOT.
3.2 Choosing of sealers
Sealers for testing were chosen by looking at previous research, examining properties
talking with supplier representatives, and final conversations with NDOT engineers.
Some sealers were chosen from previous research, according to the sealer performance in
different tests. Other sealers were chosen by searching about the sealers used to reduce
the ingress of the chloride ion inside the concrete deck. Moreover, other sealers were
chosen after meeting with representatives from different chemical companies during the
Pacific Northwest Bridge Maintenance Conference held in Portland, Oregon in 2016.
A total of 12 deck sealers and 18 crack sealers were examined as part of the initial pool of
sealers. Five deck sealers and six crack sealers were recommended to NDOT, and they
were approved to be tested by NDOT. Table 3-1 shows the different types of deck and
crack sealers that were chosen before filtering into the tested sealers.
The deck sealers chosen were from five different companies, Sika, Proscoe, Advanced
Chemical Tech., BASF, and ChemMasters. The crack sealers were chosen from five
different companies, Sika, BASF, Advanced Chemical Tech, Chemmasters, and Transpo
Industries.
19
Table 3-1: List of deck and crack sealers that were chosen before filtering
Sealer Name Manufacturer Deck Sealers
ATS-100 Advanced Chemical Tech.
ATS-100 LV Advanced Chemical Tech.
ATS-42 VOC Advanced Chemical Tech.
Deck-Sil PS1700 Series Advanced Chemical Tech.
MasterProtect H400 BASF
Aquanil Plus 40 ChemMasters
Aquanil Plus 100 ChemMasters
SpallGuard WB-10 ChemMasters
Saltguard WB Prosoco
Saltguard Prosoco
Sikagard 740 W Sika
Sikagard 705 L Sika
Crack Sealers
EP-700 D Advanced Chemical tech
MasterSeal 630 BASF
Duraguard HM Sealer ChemMasters
Duraguard 401- 30 E ChemMasters
EP100-SEAL Echem
EP75-Seal Echem
Five Star RSR PF-60 Five Star
Five Star RSR R-60 Five Star
Five Star RSR Easy Mix Five Star
Five Star RSR PolyFix Five Star
Five Star RSR EpoxyFix Five Star
Sikadur Epoxy Broadcast Sika
Sikadur 22, LO-Mod Sika
Sikadur 22, LO-Mod FS Sika
Sealate T-70 Transpo Industries
Sealate T-70 MX- 30 Transpo Industries
T-78 Polymer Crack Sealer Transpo Industries
T-523 Transpo Industries
20
3.3 Identification of sealers
Sealers were compared with each other by chemical family, viscosity, volatile organic
compound (VOC) and chloride reduction percentage. For example, sealers of silane or
siloxane or silane/siloxane would be tested. Also, cracks sealers of epoxy and Methyl
Methacrylate were chosen. Deck sealers mainly composed of silanes, siloxanes, and
linseed oil. Linseed oil hasn’t been used because its performance was low compared to
silanes and siloxanes. Linseed oil is a membrane sealer than a penetrating sealer (Soriano,
A., 2002). That’s why linseed oil wasn’t chosen to be tested, and silanes and siloxanes
are chosen. While for crack sealers, epoxies and methacrylate are the most common type
of crack sealers and they have different properties and different viscosity, so they were
chosen to be tested through different sealer.
For deck sealers, the viscosity of the sealers was one of the main issue that was taken into
consideration. For instance, if the sealer has very high viscosity it won’t penetrate as
much into the concrete so its performance won’t be good. Moreover, the depth of
penetration, volatile organic compound (VOC), and Chloride reduction percentage stated
by the manufacturer were main points of comparison between the sealers. The five deck
sealers were chosen so that some sealers will be 100% active ingredient, other 40% active
ingredient, and one 5% active ingredient. All the other sealers are the same percentage.
Also, the depth of penetration of the selected sealers are the highest among the other
sealers. This indicate that these sealers would give higher performance. Moreover, the
chloride reduction percentage from different test, as AASHTO T260 or NCHRP report
244 series II, was the highest among the five selected sealers. Furthermore, the chosen
sealers were chosen from different chemical family. Some of them are Alkylalkoxy
Silane, water based and others are Alkytrialkoxy silane solvent based or water based as
well. This could make a variety in testing different sealers.
For crack sealers, the viscosity of the sealers was very important as well as in the deck
sealers. The sealers with lower viscosity were chosen. Figure 3-1 shows the different
viscosity for the sealers. The six selected sealers were chosen so that they define different
range of viscosity. Also, the tensile properties and shear strength are the most important
comparison points to compare between the sealers. The higher the bond strength, the
better performance for the sealer. Table 3-2 shows the different properties for the selected
deck sealers used in testing. Table 3-3 shows the different properties for the selected
crack sealers used in testing.
21
Figure 3-1 Different range of viscosity for eighteen crack sealers
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Sikadur Epoxy Broadcast
Sikadur 22, LO-Mod FS
EP-700 D
Duraguard 401- 30 E
Sealate T-70 MX- 30
T-523
EP75-Seal
Five Star RSR R-60
Five Star RSR PolyFix
Viscosity (cp)
Sea
lers
22
Table 3-2: The different properties for the selected deck sealers for testing.
Pro
du
ct N
am
e
Ma
nu
fact
ure
r
Ch
emic
al
Fa
mil
y
Sea
ler
typ
e
Act
ive
Ing
red
ien
t
Co
nte
nt
Co
ver
ag
e ra
te
Ft2
/g
al
VO
C (
g/l
)
Dep
th o
f P
enet
rati
on
OH
D L
-34
/40
(mm
)
Wa
ter a
bso
rpti
on
wit
ho
ut
ab
rasi
on
AS
TM
C 6
42
Chloride Reduction
AS
HT
O T
25
9/
26
0
NC
HR
P R
epo
rt
24
4
Ser
ies
II
NC
HR
P R
epo
rt
24
4 S
erie
s IV
Sikagard 705
L Sika
Silane,
Water-
Based
Alkylalkoxy
Silane 100%
240-
360 327 >10
0.06%
(24 hrs)
0.1%
(48 hrs)
82.6%
at 1’’ 88% 98%
Saltguard WB Prosoco
Silane/
Siloxane
water-
Based
_____ 5% 50-
300 <25 ≤10 _____
_____
_ 90% 88%
ATS-100
Advanced
Chemical
Tech.
Silane,
Water-
Based
Alkyltrialko-
xysilane 100%
125-
400 <350 10-15
0.3% 48
hours
0.8% 50
Days
96.7%
@ 0.5
“
96.4%
@ 1”
89% 99%”
MasterProtect
H400 BASF
Silane,
water-
based
Alkylalkoxy
Silane 40%
100-
200 <350 ____
0.42%
48 hours
1.2% 50
Days
____ 87%
99%
South
-ern
Clima
te
Aquanil Plus
40
ChemMast
ers
Solvent,
Based
silane
Sealer
Alkyltrialkxy
silane 40%
100-
150 <600 6.0
Reducti
on 95%
24 hours
84.8%
0.5”
89.4%
1”
89.9% 86.1
%
23
Table 3-3: The different properties for the selected crack sealers for testing.
Pro
du
ct N
am
e
Ma
nu
fact
ure
r
Des
crip
tio
n
Vis
cosi
ty (
cps)
AS
TM
D
23
93
Tensile Properties
ASTM D 638
(14 days)
Sh
ear
Str
eng
th (
AS
TM
D 7
32
)
(psi
)
14
day
s
Fle
xu
ral
Str
eng
th a
t 1
4
da
ys
(AS
TM
D-7
90
)
Co
mp
ress
ive
Str
eng
th
(psi
)
Rem
ark
s
Ten
sile
Str
eng
th
(psi
)
Elo
nga
tio
n a
t
Bre
ak
Sikadur 22,
LO-Mod Sika
Low
Modulus,
medium
Viscosity and
100% Solid
epoxy resin
2,500 2,200
5,900
1.1%
30%
Mortar 1:5
3,300
5,400
4,300
6,800
28
days
7,850
at 73 F
Mortar
1:2.25
Neat
Sikadur 55
SLV Sika
Super low
viscosity,
moisture-
tolerant epoxy
resin
105 7,100 10% 5,800 8,500
28
days
12,000
at 73 F
____
Duraguard
HM Sealer
ChemMas-
ters
Very low
viscosity,
high modulus,
100% solids
epoxy
<90 7,000 3% - 7% 1,500 9,000 10,500 ____
T-78
Polymer
Crack
Sealer
Transpo
Industries
Low viscosity
Methyl
Methacrylate
Resin System
5-10 8,100 5% _____ ____ 12,800 ____
MasterSeal
630 BASF
Low
viscosity,
solvent-free,
rapid reactive
methacrylate
5-15 7,775 5% _____ 11,900 12,800
Flexura
l
Strengt
h
tested
by
(AST
M D
638)
KBP 204 KwikBond
high
molecular
weight
methacrylate monomer
composition
<25 >2000
7days _____ _____ _____
>3000
at 24
hours
_____
24
Chapter 4 Experimental Program - Deck and Crack
Sealers
4.1 Deck Sealers
4.1.1 Introduction
This chapter includes the laboratory experimental program used to assess the
effectiveness and performance of some of the commercially available sealers for both
deck and crack sealers. Details are provided for casting of specimens, test methods and
testing procedures. All the test used were based on existing methods: ASTM, AASHTO,
and NCHRP Report 244 series 2.
4.1.2 Laboratory experimental program overview
The primary objective of this task is to assess the performance of the chosen deck sealers,
and their ability in reducing the penetration of the chlorides through the concrete. This
task was accomplished by using different tests on five different deck sealers. Each test
examined a different performance criterion of the sealers. The tests performed were as
follow:
1- Chloride Ion Intrusion “AASHTO T259/260”: Standard method test for
resistance of concrete to chloride ion penetration.
2- Freeze/thaw Exposure “ASTM C666”: Standard Test Method for Resistance of
Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing. This test used for testing the specimens
in chloride ion intrusion test.
3- Rapid Permeability “ASTM C1202”: Standard test method for electrical
indication of Concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion penetration.
4- Saltwater Absorption “NCHRP report 244 series II”: A test used to measure
the sealer’s ability to limit the ingress of water and chlorides and is based on the
NCHRP 244 testing series II.
The specimen’s size were not the same for the tests. Some specimens were cylinders,
others were small slabs. A number of samples were determined for each test, with
different dimensions. The rapid permeability test used a 4 in. by 8 in cylinder. Slabs with
dimensions 12 in. by 12 in. by 3 in. were used for chloride ion intrusion and saltwater
absorption. For the freeze/thaw exposure tests, specimens with dimension 4 in. by 16 in.
by 3 in. were used.
Tests included specimens that were:
Sealed and sandblasted before ponding with a sodium chloride solution for 90 days;
Sealed and immersed in sodium chloride solution for 21 days; and weighted after that.
Casting, preparation, and sealing of the concrete specimens, as well as the procedure of
each test will be described further in this chapter.
25
4.1.3 Description of test specimens and application of sealers
Specimens were cast in January 2017. Two different concrete used in this research:
American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix. The two kinds of concrete were of the same
type “Portland cement concrete” but were from two different companies with different
type of aggregate. Two types of concrete were used to see if sealers were equally
effective for two types of concrete.
4.1.3.1 Concrete types
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 show the different characteristic of the American Ready-Mix
and 3D Ready-Mix respectively.
Table 4-1 Characteristic and mix portions for one cubic feet of the American Ready-Mix Materials Description Source oz/yd Abs.Vol(CF) Weight(lb)
Coarse
Aggregate WNM#67
Western Nevada
Materials 8.12 1.309
Coarse
Aggregate WNM#8 MA
Western Nevada
Materials 1.53 248
Fine Aggregate WNM Sand Western Nevada
Materials 7.36 1.196
Portland
Cement Type I/II Lehigh 2.69 529
Mineral/admix Class F-Fly Ash Jim Bridger 1.23 176
Water City 32 gal 4.34 271
Air Entrainer NDOT Micro Air BASF 10 0.01 1
Type A water
reducer
NDOT Glenium
7500 BASF 50 0.05 3
Type A water
reducer
NDOT Rheomne
VMA 362 BASF 21 0.02 1
Type A water
reducer NDOT DELVO BASF 21 0.02 1
Air 1.61
26
Table 4-2 Characteristic and mix portions for one cubic feet of the 3D Ready-Mix
Material Description/Source Weight
(lbs)
Volume
(cu.Ft)
Cement Nevada Type II 546 2.778
SCM Nevada Class N Pozzolan 137 0.919
Coarse Aggregate Dayton#67 stone 1434 8.839
Coarse Aggregate Dayton#8 Stone 230 1.429
Fine Aggregate Dayton Manufactured Concrete Sand 113 0.702
Fine Aggregate Dayton Concrete Sand 1019 6.329
Water 33.1 gallons 276 4.423
Air Content 5.50%
1.485
Admixture Eucon Air Entraining Admixture (0.45
oz/cwt) 3.1(fl oz) 0.003
Admixture Eucon X15 (9oz/cwt) Initial 61.5(fl oz) 0.064
Admixture Eucon 37(40z/cwt) Final 27.3(fl oz) 0.029
4.1.3.2 Casting and curing procedures
Casting of concrete occurred at the Large-Scale Structures Laboratory at University of
Nevada, Reno. Slump tests and air content tests were conducted on the concrete during
casting to make sure it met the criteria specified in ASTM C 143 and ASTM C 23.
Figure 4-1 show the slump and the air content tests applied during casting. Specimens
were covered with plastic for 48 hours after casting and then transported to the curing
room and left there for different days depending on the test specimen requirements. A
compressive strength test was made after 7, 21, 28, and 133 “test date” days. Table 4-3
shows the number of specimens used in each test. The same number of specimens were
used in American Ready-Mix and in 3D Ready-Mix.
(a) (b)
Figure 4-1 Quality control tests for concrete (a) Slump test (b) Air content test
27
Table 4-3 shows the specimens size and no. of specimens used in each test
Test name Test Method Specimen
size
Control
specimens
Specimens
with sealers
Chloride Ion
Intrusion
AASHTO
T259/260
Slab 12 in. by
12 in. by
3 in.
2 5
Freeze/thaw
Exposure ASTM C 666
Slab 16 in. by
4 in. 3 in. 1 5
Saltwater
Absorption
NCHRP
report 244
series II
Slab 12 in. by
12 in. by
3 in.
3 15
Rapid
Permeability
ASTM C
1202
Cylinders 4
in. by 2 in 7 35
Bond
Strength ASTM C 496
Slab 8 in. by
4 in. 3 in. 0 10
4.1.3.3 Sealers application
The concrete age for the sealer application was different for each test. For the chloride
ion intrusion test, sealers were applied on the 12 in. by 12 in. by 3 in. specimens after 14
days from casting. For the rapid permeability test, salt water absorption, and freeze/thaw
test, sealers were applied after 28 days from casting. All the sealers air dried for 7 days
before testing independent of the type of test. Figure 4-2 shows the application of the
sealers on some samples in the fume hood.
Figure 4-2 Application of sealers in flume hood
28
4.1.4 Chloride ion intrusion test “AASHTO T259/T260”
The chloride ion intrusion (90 days ponding test) is one of the test that have been
performed on the deck sealers to assess the performance of each sealer and its ability in
reducing the amount of chlorides that penetrates the concrete. The test was performed
according to AASHTO T259 and AASHTO T260.
4.1.4.1 Specimen preparation and ponding
In this test, specimens were divided into two sets. The first set contains specimens that
were not exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, and the second set contains specimens that have
been exposed to freeze/thaw cycles. All the specimens followed the same preparation
procedure. All the specimens were removed from the curing room after 14 days. After 14
days, the specimens were air dried until day 21. At 21 days, the sealers were applied, and
the specimens were allowed to dry until day 28. At day 29, the specimens were
sandblasted by 3.2 +- 1.6 mm (0.125 +- 0.0625 in.) of the slab surface to be similar to the
bridge deck concrete that has been subjected to the wearing effect of vehicular traffic.
The sandblasting was performed by a sandblaster equipment 20 lb. Pressurized Abrasive
Blaster, and the abrasive material used was black aluminum oxide 70 grit, and the depth
of the abraded surface was measured by a caliper in random locations to make sure that
the required depth was removed. Figure 4-3 shows the difference between a specimen
before and after sandblasting.
(a) (b)
Figure 4-3 (a) Specimen before sandblasting (b) Specimen after sandblasting
Nineteen mm (0.75 in.) high dams were placed around the 12 in. by 12 in. by 3 in.
specimens to prevent the leakage of the salt water used in ponding. The dam could be
either expanded foam or plastic caulked by silicon to prevent the leakage of the saltwater
solution. Figure 4-4 shows the expanded foam dam around the specimens. All specimens
returned back to the drying room for air drying till age 42 days.
29
Figure 4-4 Expanded foam around the edge of the specimen
After 42 days of curing, the specimens were covered by 3 percent sodium chloride
solution for 90 days and stored in a separate shed. The saltwater depth was 0.5 in.
above the surface of the specimens. The specimens were covered by plastic
tarpaulin to eliminate the evaporation of water. Figure 4-5 shows the specimens
covered with plastic. “About once a week, which is approximately eleven times
the solution was added to the specimens whose water level decreased. After 90
days of ponding, the solution was removed from the specimens, and the
specimens were wire-brushed to remove the salt crystal from the surface. Then,
using a rotary hammer the samples were extracted from the specimens
immediately.
Figure 4-5 Specimens with saltwater solution covered with plastic covers
30
4.1.4.2 Samples retrieving
For each sealer, two samples for each condition were tested. Samples were
retrieved from the holes in each specimen within two different depth ranges. The
first depth range was 1.6 mm to 13 mm (0.0625 in. to 0.5 in.), and the second
depth range was 13 mm to 25 mm (0.5 in. to 1.0 in.). The samples were retrieved
using rotary hammer and a depth indicator. Three holes were formed in each
specimen. The sample had to be about 3 grams of powder. From each hole, about
10 grams of powder were extracted to form two samples per hole or more if it was
needed. Figure 4-6 shows the location of holes.
Figure 4-6 Locations of holes in a specimen
All samples had to pass a 0.300 mm (No.50) sieve. One specimen was used for each
sealer and for the control (unsealed) specimen one specimen was used as well, 3 holes
were extracted from each specimen, and two samples from each hole. The rotary
hammer, drills and spoons used were washed with alcohol and distilled water after the
retrieving of each samples and then wiped to prevent the contamination of the chlorides
between different samples.
4.1.4.3 Equipment and reagents used
The amount of chlorides was determined by using a Cole Palmer chloride ion selective
electrode. The measurements were done with the electrode and connected to Fisher
Scientific accumet AE150 millivolt meter and digital data display.
Different reagents were used in this test for the sample decomposition. Sodium chloride
NaCl with 0.01 Normality was used. The sodium chloride solution was prepared by
getting a mass of approximately 0.5844 g of NaCl reagent, dissolve in a 1-L of distilled
water and mix them together. Silver nitrate AgNO3 with 0.01 Normality was used. The
silver nitrate solution was prepared by obtaining the mass of 1.7 g of reagent AgNO3
mixed with 1-L of distilled water. Concentrated Nitric Acid HNO3 (sp gr 1.42) was used.
Methyl orange indicator was used.
31
4.1.4.4 Sample decomposition
AASHTO T260 specify two procedures for decomposition, either acid-soluble chloride
ion content or water-soluble chloride ion content. Both procedures use the same
chemicals and equipment but with different techniques. This research used the water-
soluble chloride ion content.
The first step was to obtain approximately 3.0 g of concrete powder for each sample to
nearest 0.001 g. The weighed powders were transferred to a beaker of 150 ml or 250 ml.
Distilled water was added to the beaker until it reached 60-70 ml. The beaker was
covered and brought to boil on a hot plate and magnetic stirrer using a small magnet for 5
min and left for 24 hours in an HCI fume-free atmosphere.
The boiled liquid was filtered in a beaker through double filter paper (Whatman No. 41
and 42). Sufficient hot distilled water was added to cover any residue left in the beaker
and then filtered into the beaker. 1-2 drops of methyl orange indicator were added to the
filtered liquid, then concentrated HNO3 was added while continuous stirring on a
magnetic stirrer until a permanent pink color was obtained. Figure 4-7 shows some
samples with pink color after addition of nitric acid and methyl orange.
Figure 4-7 Samples after being acidic with nitric acid and methyl orange indicator
Three alternate methods are specified by AASHTO T260 for the analysis of the given
results of the electrode. The method used in this research was Potentiometric Titration.
4.1.4.5 Potentiometric titration
The electrode first was filled with the 10% KNO3 solution and then calibrated. Three
solutions of ionic selective electrode (ISA) solution were made for calibration: 1 ppm, 10
ppm and 100 ppm. According to the manufacture, the electrode was calibrated to 200 mv
for 1 ppm, 150 mv for 10 ppm, and 90 mv for 100 ppm. After calibration, the electrode
was immersed in distilled water to measure the equivalence point of the distilled water.
32
The electrode was removed from the distilled water and wiped carefully then immersed
in the sample’s beaker. 4.00 ml of 0.01 normality of NaCl was added to the sample
beaker, while swirling carefully on a magnetic stirrer. AgNO3 solution with normality
0.01 was added gradually, the amount was recorded that brought the electrode
measurement to below 40 mv of the equivalence point determined in distilled water.
Standard 0.01 normality solution in 0.10 mL increments was added and the millivolt
meter reading was recorded after each addition. The titration was continued until the
millivolt meter reading was at least 40 mV past the approximate equivalence point. The
end point of titration was usually near the approximate equivalence point in distilled
water and can be determined by plotting the volume of AgNO3 solution versus the
millivolt meter reading. The end point for the AgNO3 solution correspond to the point of
the inflection of the resultant smooth curve (i.e. the biggest difference between two
consecutive readings. Figure 4-8 shows the combination of the beaker-electrode-burette-
millivolt meter during the chloride ion analysis titration.
Figure 4-8 Electrode-burette-millivolt meter used for chloride ion analysis titration
4.1.4.6 Data collection
As stated before, from each hole 10 grams of material was extracted and two samples
each 3 grams samples were tested from each hole and 4 grams are excessive in case that
we need to test any sample again. The two samples from each hole gave very close
number for the amount of silver nitrate added as shown in the following figures where the
two samples from the same hole have very similar amount of chlorides. Figure 4-9 and
Figure 4-10 shows the titration curves for two samples taken from two different holes.
33
Figure 4-9 Two titration curves for two samples from the same hole
Figure 4-10 Two titration curves for two samples from the same hole
The end point of the silver nitrate solution has been determined either by the inflection of
the curve or the biggest difference between two consecutive readings, then the percentage
of chloride ion was calculated from Equation 4-1:
Cl- % = (3.5453(V1N1 – V2N2))/W Equation 4-1
Where:
V1: end point of AgNO3 in mL,
N1: normality of AgNO3 (almost 0.01),
W: actual mass of concrete sample in grams,
V2: volume of NaCl solution added in mL (4 mL),
N2: normality of NaCL solution,
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
18.5 19.5 20.5 21.5 22.5 23.5 24.5
Mill
ivo
ltm
eter
rea
din
g (m
v)
Amount of silver nitrate added (ml)
1st sample 2nd sample
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22
Mill
ivo
ltm
eter
rea
din
g (m
v)
Amount of silver nitrate added (ml)
1st sample 2nd sample
34
In order to make comparison easier, the chloride percentage was converted to pounds of
chloride ion per cubic yard of concrete by the following Equation 4-2:
Cl- / yd3 = Cl- % * (UW/100) Equation 4-2
Where UW is the unit weight of concrete per cubic yard and taken as 4050 lb/yd3 for
normal structural mass concrete when the actual unit weight is unknown. Figure 4-11
shows a sample curve for one of the tested samples.
Figure 4-11 Sample titration curve for unsealed specimen
4.1.5 Freeze/thaw exposure “ASTM C 666”
In order to understand the behavior of the sealers in reducing the amount of chlorides
penetrated into concrete when exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, some specimens were
exposed to freeze/thaw cycles and tested with the chloride ion intrusion test. For each
concrete type, the American Ready-Mix and the 3D Ready-Mix, one specimen for each
sealer and two specimens as control specimens were sent to a CTL Thompson company
in Denver, Colorado to be tested under freeze/thaw cycles. The test was done according
to ASTM C 666, and the test was finished after 300 cycles. After completing the tests, the
specimens were shipped back to the University of Nevada, Reno. The durability for the
concrete were calculated for both concrete. Specimens were placed in the sodium
chloride solution (3%) for 90 days, and then the same procedures for the chloride ion
intrusion was repeated.
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
Mill
ivo
ltm
eter
rea
din
g (m
v)
Amount of Silver nitrate added (ml)
35
4.1.6 Rapid permeability test “ASTM C1202”
This is an indirect testing method commonly used to measure the permeability of
concrete, ASTM C 1202 (“Standard test method for electrical indication of concrete’s
ability to resist chloride ion penetration”). The result of this testing method was related to
the electric conductivity of saturated concrete, which can be correlated to the chloride
permeability of saturated concrete (Stanish et al. 1997).
4.1.6.1 Specimen preparation
Specimens used for this test were cylinders “4 in. by 8 in.” and then were cut into smaller
samples according to the standard specifications. For each cylinder specimen, the cutting
machine in the laboratory cut a “4 in. by 2 in.” slice. This test was done twice. First one
within 30 to 40 days concrete age, 10 days to finish testing all the specimens, and the
second one was done after an age of 120 days. The purpose of doing the test at different
ages was to assess the impact of concrete age on performance. The porosity decreases
with time as concrete becomes denser. After cutting the specimens into 4 in. by 2 in.
disks, the specimens were coated with plasti dip around its circumference while filling
any apparent hole in the coating. The plasti dip is an air dry, specialty rubber coating,
insulating, and non-slip. This coating was used to prevent the leaking of any of the
electrical current during the test.
The university laboratory has the instrument to perform this test on but it would take
more time because the test has to be performed manually. The research team to talk with
professional testing company that has a digital instrument; this allowed the testing to
proceed much faster.
4.1.6.2 Test Procedure
Sealer was applied on concrete types after day 28. Five different sealers were applied on
both concrete. Twenty-four specimens were tested at the age of 30-40 days and 18 were
tested after 120 days. At the age of 30-40 days, four concrete specimens for each of the
five sealers were tested, plus four specimens with no sealer act as a control specimen to
compare the amount of chlorides penetrated the concrete without sealers and with sealers.
At the age of 120 days, three concrete specimens for each sealer plus three concrete
specimens without any sealer were tested.
Test was done by passing an electrical current through the concrete cylinder. Two
solutions were used for this test. Sodium chloride with 3 % weight and sodium hydroxide
with 0.03 normality. The test is done on two separate days. First day, the specimens were
put in a vacuum desiccator for three hours under pressure 50 mmhg and then immerse in
water for additional hour under the same pressure and left for 18 +/- 2 hours till the next
day, then it was ready to be tested. Figure 4-12 shows the vacuum desiccator used in
removing air from the specimens. The next day the test was conducted and terminated
automatically after 6 hours.
36
Figure 4-12 Rapid chloride permeability test setup
The next day, the specimens were ready for testing. Each specimen was put between two
cells: one contained the sodium chloride solution and the other cell contain the sodium
hydroxide solution. The cell containing sodium chloride solution was attached to the
negative terminal of the power supply. The cell containing sodium hydroxide was
attached to the positive terminal of the power supply. Lead wired from the cell to the
power supply had temperature recording in order to terminate the test if the temperature
exceeded 65oC. Figure 4-13 shows typical cell and test setup for the specimens with
cells, lead wire, power supply and program used for recording the data. After 6 hours the
program terminates the test and record all the results during the 6 hours.
(a) (b)
Figure 4-13 (a) Typical tested specimen (b) Rapid chloride permeability test setup
4.1.7 Saltwater absorption “NCHRP Report series II”
The Saltwater absorption test method is used for determining sealer’s ability to limit the
ingress of water and chlorides and is based on the NCHRP 244 testing series II. In this
study, only the gravimetric determination of absorption was tested. Specimens used for
37
this test were small slabs 12 in. by 12 in. by 3 in. For each sealer, three specimens were
tested and three specimens without any sealers were tested as a control specimen.
Sealers were applied on concrete specimens after 28 days after casting. All the specimens
were weighted after applying the sealers (W0). A sodium chloride solution (15 percent by
weight) was used to immerse the specimens. Specimens were immersed in the solution
and put on small wooden sticks, so that water will cover the specimens from all sides.
Figure 4-14 shows the immersion of the specimens in a plastic bucket filled with the
solution.
Figure 4-14 Immersion of specimens in a plastic bucket filled with water
Specimens were removed after 7 days, rinsed, toweled and weighted (W7). The weight
gained was calculated using Equation 4-3
∆Wi7 = (Wi7d- Wi0)/ (Wi0) Equation 4-3
Where,
∆Wi7: Weight gained during 7 days of immersion
Wi0: Weight at 0 days
The mean weight, which is the average of the three tested specimens for each type of
sealer and control, were calculated. The saltwater absorption Ratio (SAR) was calculated
representing the ratio between the absorption of sealed specimens to unsealed specimens,
as in Equation 4-4.
SAR7% = ∆Wi7 sealed/∆Wi7 unsealed *100 as percent at7 days Equation 4-4
Where,
SAR7: saltwater absorption ratio at 7 days
Wi7 sealed: mean weight of three sealed specimens at 7 days
Wi7 unsealed: mean weight of three unsealed specimens at 7 days
The specimens were then returned to the saltwater bath. Then at day 14 and at day 21, the
specimens were removed out from the saltwater, rinsed, toweled, and then weighted
(W14) and (W21). The weight gain at 14 days and 21 days were calculated using equations
(4-5) and (4-6).
38
∆ Wi14 = (Wi14- Wi0)/ (Wi0) Equation 4-5
∆ Wi21= (Wi21- Wi0)/ (Wi0) Equation 4-6
The SAR was calculated for both 14 and 21 days using Equations 4-7 and 4-8:
SAR14%=∆Wi14 sealed/∆Wi14 unsealed *100 as percent at 21 days Equation 4-7
SAR21%=∆Wi21 sealed/∆Wi21 unsealed *100 as percent at 21 days Equation 4-8
4.2 Crack sealers
4.2.1 Introduction
This section includes the experimental program for laboratory test used to assess the
effectiveness and performance of some of the commercially available crack sealers.
Details on casting of specimens, test methods and procedure are provided.
4.2.2 Laboratory test overview
Six crack sealers were used in this study by applying two tests to assess the performance
of the crack sealers. These two tests are depth of penetration test, to examine the
penetration of the sealers through the required crack width, and bond strength test, to
assess the ability of the sealers to fill and glue the crack till breaking. Depth of
penetration will be tested by visually inspection, and bond strength test was applied with
a procedure similar to that used for obtaining the splitting tensile strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. To achieve this goal, concrete specimens with dimension 4 in. by 16
in. by 3 in. were cast and cured. Every specimen was cut into two halves to form a
specimen with dimension 4 in. by 8 in. by 3 in. Cracks were formed in specimens with
dimension of 4 in. by 8 in. by 3 in. with the required width, then filled with the sealers
and tested after two weeks.
4.2.3 Description of test specimens
Specimens of dimension 4 in. by 16 in. by 3 in. were cast and then cut into 4 in. by 8 in.
by 3 in. specimens. Sufficient number of specimens were casted to be tested after
applying six sealers on two different crack widths.
4.2.4 Casting and curing
The same two concrete mixes as used for the deck sealer were used for crack sealer:
American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix. Concrete specimens were left in the curing
room (100% humidity) for 3 months till the scheduled testing date.
39
4.2.5 Cracking of the specimens
Before applying the sealers in the cracks, the cracks had to be formed with the required
width. In order to form the cracks, a notch in the upper and lower surface of the
specimens was formed using a cutting sawing machine with depth 1/4 in. and width 5/8
in. as shown in Figure 4-15.
Figure 4-15 Notches in the upper and lower surface of the specimens
Steel rods were used in the upper and lower notch to concentrate the load over the notch.
The specimens were then placed in the testing machine to be loaded and to form the crack
as shown in Figure 4-16. Instead using method consistent with the Wisconsin DOT, the
crack could have been formed by cutting the specimens into two halves using a cutting
sawing machine. In this case the crack will be very smooth, therefore the crack would
need to be roughen in order to similitude a real crack surface; this type of crack would be
better more consistent, so the modes of failure between all the sealers would be according
to the same crack pattern. To be consistent with the Wisconsin DOT; this research used
the method of forming a crack using rods and notches.
Figure 4-16 Test setup used for cracking the specimens
40
4.2.5.1 Formation of crack width
Two cracks width were used in the research. These crack widths were 0.09 inch and 0.15
inch. In order to form the cracks with the required width, aluminum foil was wrapped to
the required thickness and placed at the two ends of the specimens using C-clamps; this
forced the crack width to be the same as the aluminum foil thickness, as shown in Figure
4-17. The crack width was measured at the end of the specimens to make sure that the
required width was obtained. Some adjustment was made either by changing the number
of foil layers or changing the C-clamps pressure until the required width was achieved.
Figure 4-17 Specimens clamped to form the required width
After the specimens were clamped to the required crack width, silicone caulk was used to
seal the ends and the underside of the specimens to prevent the leakage of the sealers
after applying. Also, the silicon was put on the upper side on the edges so that the silicon
would act as a dam to prevent the leakage of the sealers. Figure 4-18 shows the
specimens after being caulked with silicon from beneath and the sides.
41
Figure 4-18 Specimens after being sealed with silicone caulk
4.2.6 Sealers application
After the silicone caulk was dried according to the manufacturers’ recommendation,
sealers were applied inside the cracks. Each sealer from the six sealers was applied in two
specimens, one with crack width 0.09 in. and the other with 0.15 in. Total twelve
specimens of American Ready-Mix were sealed, and the same for the 3D Ready-Mix.
The sealers were applied in the fume hood and left for 14 days till testing. Before testing
two inches were cut from both ends of the specimen by the cutting machine to use them
in the depth of penetration test and the remaining part of each specimen – approximately
4 inches by 3.5 inches - was used in the bond strength test.
4.2.7 Depth of penetration test
The purpose of this test was to see how deeply each sealer would penetrate through the
cracks, depending on the viscosity of each sealer, and to determine if any voids or parts
the sealers couldn’t penetrate by visually examining the two cross sections with the naked
eye. Two inches were cut from both edges of the specimens as shown in Figure 4-19 and
were visually inspected. The remaining part of the specimens “3.5 in. by 4 in. by 3 in.”
were used in bond strength test.
42
Figure 4-19 Cross section of a specimen filled with crack sealer
4.2.8 Bond strength test
The bond strength test was studied by a test procedure similar to ASTM C 496 “Splitting
Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens”. After 14 days from applying the
sealers, concrete samples were cut 2 inches from both ends for the depth of penetration
test and the remaining part were used for this test.
4.2.8.1 Breaking of the specimens and the loading rate
Specimens were placed in a machine similar to that used in forming the crack. Two steel
rods were placed along the notches in the upper and lower face of the specimens. The
load was applied along these steel rods to make sure the uniform distribution of the load.
Figure 4-20 shows the test setup.
Figure 4-20 Setup used to test the bond strength of the crack sealer specimens
The load rate used was approximately equal to that stated by the ASTM C 496. The
loading rate in the specification is 100 to 200 psi/min. The loading rate used in the
43
experiment was load control rate equal to 550 lb/10 sec. The specification stated that the
splitting tensile strength of the specimen is T =2P/πld where p is the load, l is the length
of the specimen and d is the diameter. Since the specimens used are not cylindrical but
rectangle, d used in this equation was 3 inches and l was 3.5 inches, and the T was 200
psi/min. By applying this equation, the p obtained was 550 lb/ 10sec. The load was
compared to 10 sec, so that it could be applicable to control the rate in the machine. The
maximum load reached by the machine was the bond strength for the specimen. The test
was terminated when the load decreased to 20% of the maximum load or until the
specimens completely crush. Test data were collected included the bond strength of each
specimen with a certain sealer and the mode of failure for the specimens. The modes of
failure could be either concrete failure, sealer failure or interface failure. A combination
of two failures mode could also happen. The bond strength reported is not necessarily the
bond strength of the sealer but strength at which the specimen failed. If this failure was in
the sealer, the reported strength is the shear strength of the sealer. If the failure is in the
interface, then this is the bond strength. If the failure is in the concrete, then the bond
strength of the sealer is known to be at least that equal to the concrete shear strength.
44
Chapter 5 Test Results And Discussion - Deck Sealers
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter the results of the tests that were conducted for deck sealers will be
presented and discussed. As stated in Chapter 4, four tests were done on the deck sealers,
and two tests were done on the crack sealers. Crack sealer results will be discussed in the
next chapter. For deck sealers, results of rapid chloride permeability (Section 5.2),
saltwater absorption (Section 5.3), and chloride ion intrusion for specimens with and
without exposing to freeze/thaw (Section 5.4) are presented and discussed. The results
from these tests are then discussed and the sealers are ranked and classified into different
categories according to their performance (Sections 5.5 to 5.8).
5.2 Rapid permeability test “ASTM C1202”
As stated in Chapter 4, the rapid permeability test was conducted on two concrete types
and at two different stages. The first stage was after a concrete age of 30 to 40 days and
the other stage was after 120 to 130 days. The performance of the sealers was different
for both stages and both concretes as well. The results of this test were related to the
amount of charge passed through the specimens. From the average charge amount, the
permeability class can be defined. The following tables show the results for both the
American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix at the two stages. The dashed cells in the table
mean that these cells were neglected in the calculations. The results were neglected
because the test was terminated automatically during the test because of the high
temperature of the specimens and the cells. Also, out of the average of the tested cells,
some few results were not included according to ASTM E 177-14 (2013) precision and
bias procedure. Bias is defined as a systematic error that contributes to the difference
between the mean of a large number of test results and an accepted reference
value. Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show the mean results and the 95% confidence interval
for the control specimens and the five sealers for American Ready-Mix, and 3D Ready-
Mix respectively for stage 1 “after 30 days”. Where the 95% confidence interval was
calculated based on the mean plus/minus 1.96 x standard deviation over the square root
of the number of samples. Table 5-1 shows the chloride ion penetrability based on charge
passed according to ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of
Concrete Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
Table 5-1 Chloride ion penetrability according to charge passed
Charge passed (coulombs) Chloride Ion Penetrability
>4000 High
2,000 – 4,000 Moderate
1,000 – 2,000 Low
100 – 1,000 Very Low
<100 Negligible
45
Figure 5-1 Mean and 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix specimens
after 30 days
Figure 5-2 Mean and 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens
after 30 days
Table 5-2 shows the results for the different sealers applied on the concrete from
American Ready-Mix at stage 1 (30-40 days of age) and stage 2 (120-130 days of age).
For stage 2, the amount of charges passed for Aquanil plus 40 specimens were very high
while all the other sealers were very low which is expected to have a few amounts of
charges passed after 120 days; so, the results for Aquanil plus 40 doesn’t make any sense
and it was neglected.
Table 5-3 shows the results for the different deck sealers applied on the concrete from 3D
Ready-Mix at stage 1 (30-40 days of age) and stage 2 (120-130 days of age). The results
in the following tables are based on the average value of the charge passed not the value
of upper or the lower interval for the 95% confidence level, hence the permeability class
is assigned according to the average. Table 5-4 shows the different penetrability
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Am
ou
nt
of
Ch
arge
(co
ulo
mb
s)
Control Sikagard 705L Saltguard WB
ATS-100 Masterprotect H400 Aquanilplus 40
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Am
ou
nt
of
Ch
arge
(C
ou
lom
bs)
Control Sikagard 705L Saltguard WB
ATS-100 Masterprotect H400 Aquanilplus 40
46
“permeability” class for both concretes after 30 days of age according to the 95%
confidence interval. In stage 2, specimens sealed with MasterProtect H400 were
neglected because the tests were terminated due to these specimens reaching high
temperatures. The discussion of all the results will be shown in (Section 5.5).
Table 5-2 Results of rapid permeability test for American Ready-Mix at both stages
30 days 120 days
Sealer Average
charges passed
Permeability
class
Average charges
passed
Permeability
class
Control 5713 High 5786 High
Sikagard 705 L 3146.5 Moderate 134.67 Very Low
Saltguard WB 3091.7 Moderate 330.7 Very Low
ATS-100 2527.75 Moderate 152 Very Low
MasterProtect
H400 2320.25 Moderate 181 Very Low
Aquanil Plus 40 1947.25 Low ---- ----
Table 5-3 Results of rapid permeability test for 3D concrete at both stages
30 days 120 days
Sealer Average
charges passed
Permeability
class
Average charges
passed
Permeability
class
Control 4289.3 High 3918 Moderate
Sikagard 705 L 2220.5 Moderate 142.5 Very Low
Saltguard WB 2136.3 Moderate 474 Very Low
ATS-100 1107.25 Low 260.5 Very Low
MasterProtect
H400 1757.25 Low ---- ----
Aquanil Plus 40 1115 Low 149.5 Very Low
47
Table 5-4 Permeability class for both concretes after 30 days of age according to the 95%
confidence interval
Concrete Specimens Average Highest Interval Lowest Interval
American
Ready-Mix
Control High High High Sikagard 705 L Moderate Moderate Moderate Saltguard WB Moderate High Moderate
ATS-100 Moderate Moderate Moderate MasterProtect H400 Moderate Moderate Low
Aquanil Plus 40 Low Moderate Low
3D Ready-Mix
Control High High Moderate
Sikagard 705 L Moderate Moderate Low
Saltguard WB Moderate Moderate Low
ATS-100 Low Low V.Low
MasterProtect H400 Low Low Low Aquanil Plus 40 Low Low V.Low
5.3 Saltwater absorption test “NCHRP report series II”
In saltwater absorption test, the weight of the specimens with each sealer was measured
before immersion in solution and then weighed after 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days of
immersion in 15% saltwater solution. The weights were used to calculate the saltwater
absorption ratio (SAR), Equation 4-3 to Equation 4-8.
Table 5-5 shows the SAR % for the 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days for the American
Ready-Mix specimens. Table 5-6 shows the SAR % for the 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days
for the 3D Ready-Mix specimens. Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show the mean weight and
95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix. Figure 5-5 shows
the SAR% for both concrete along the days.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Mea
n W
eigh
t
48
Figure 5-3 Mean Weight and 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix
specimens
Figure 5-4 Mean Weight and 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens
Table 5-5 Results for the saltwater absorption test for American Ready-Mix
Sealers SAR7 % SAR14 % SAR21 %
Control 100 100 100
Sikagard 705 L 35.619 32.033 34.232
Saltguard WB 56.297 58.933 63.954
ATS-100 45.367 45.252 49.812
MasterProtect H400 35.830 36.392 39.209
Aquanil Plus 40 48.885 52.613 55.248
Table 5-6 Results for the saltwater absorption test for 3D Ready-Mix
Sealers SAR7 % SAR14 % SAR21 %
Control 100 100 100
Sikagard 705 L 49.176 52.477 51.226
Saltguard WB 65.961 67.469 69.730
ATS-100 43.728 45.510 48.678
MasterProtect H400 45.342 47.720 54.389
Aquanil Plus 40 50.442 52.558 54.824
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Mea
n W
eigh
t
49
(a) (b)
Figure 5-5 SAR% for deck sealers applied on (a) American Ready-Mix (b) 3D Ready-
Mix
50
5.4 Chloride ion intrusion test “AASHTO T259/T260”
For the chloride ion test, some specimens were not exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, and a
second set up specimens was exposed to freeze/thaw cycles.
5.4.1 Without exposure to freeze/thaw “freeze/thaw”
Samples were taken to determine the amount of chlorides in the concrete. Two samples
from each hole, with three holes per specimens, were collected. The same procedures
were done on specimens of American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix.
Detail for AASHTO T260 were provided in (Section 4.1.4.) Equation 5-1 was used to
calculate the amount of chlorides that penetrated through the concrete. Then the
percentage of this concrete was converted to lbs/yd3 by multiplying the percentage by
(UW/100) to see the effect of chlorides on a large scale. UW is the unit weight of
concrete per cubic yard and taken as 4050 lb/yd3 for normal structural mass concrete
when the actual unit weight is unknown. Table 5-7 shows the chloride amounts absorbed
by the control specimens and different types of sealers applied on American Ready-Mix.
Table 5-8 shows the chloride amounts absorbed by control specimens and different types
of sealers applied on 3D Ready-Mix. For all the specimens, the mean chloride ingress
was calculated and the standard deviation for all the sealers and control specimens, then a
95% confidence interval was calculated.
Cl- % = (3.5453(V1N1 – V2N2))/W Equation 5-1
Table 5-7 Chlorides values for sealers applied on American Ready-Mix specimens not
exposed to freeze/thaw
Sealers
Amount of Chloride absorbed (lb./yd3)
First hole Second hole Third
hole Average
Standard
deviation
Control
unponded
0.525 0.572 0.476 0.516 0.064
0.476 0.429 0.62
Control
ponded
9.107 9.342 10.609 10.045 0.894
11.36 10.75 9.107
Sikagard
705L
2.99 3.123 2.225 2.984 0.803
2.11 2.891 4.566
Saltguard WB 4.788 9.94 7.511
7.254 2.214 5.211 5.727 10.345
ATS-100 5.493 6.887 4.245
6.149 1.589 5.142 5.901 9.227
Masterprotect
H400
3.096 2.916 3.436 3.713 0.863
3.092 5.27 4.468
Aquanil Plus
40
7.042 7.981 8.591 7.793 0.623
7.605 8.497 7.042
51
Table 5-8 chlorides values for sealers applied on 3D Ready-Mix specimens not exposed
to freeze/thaw
Sealers
Amount of Chloride absorbed (lb./yd3)
First hole Second hole Third
hole Average
Standard
deviation
Control
unponded
0.516 0.516 0.376 0.533 0.116
0.516 0.704 0.704
Control
ponded
6.184 5.868 5.232 5.779 0.40
5.241 5.962 6.19
Sikagard
705L
2.779 3.24 3.129 2.932 0.451
2.272 2.548 3.627
Saltguard WB 5.465 5.716 5.784
6.191 0.719 6.662 5.952 7.571
ATS-100 5.257 4.483 4.085
5.022 0.612 6.008 5.057 5.246
Masterprotect
H400
3.157 4.256 3.063 3.431 0.581
2.938 2.938 4.237
Aquanil Plus
40
7.149 8.103 9.151 7.340 1.721
9.151 6.196 4.29
Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 shows the average and the 95% confidence interval for the
control and five sealers specimens for both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix w/o
exposure to freeze/thaw cycles.
Figure 5-6 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure to
freeze/thaw cycles
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Cl%
ab
sorb
ed (
lb./
yd3 )
Control Sikagard 705L Saltguard WB ATS-100 Masterprotec tH400 Aquanilplus 40
52
Figure 5-7 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure to
freeze/thaw cycles
5.4.2 With exposure to freeze/thaw “ASTM C 666”
Seven specimens from American Ready-Mix and seven specimens from 3D Ready-Mix
were sent to CTL Thomson Company in Denver, Colorado. The specimens were exposed
to 300 cycles of freeze/thaw. The weight, and the resonant frequency of each specimen
were recorded in the company and sent to UNR Lab. Calculations at UNR were made in
order to calculate the relative dynamic modulus of elasticity, and the durability of each
specimen. After the specimens were shipped back from the company to UNR, the
chloride ion intrusion test was conducted on these specimens with the same procedure as
chloride ion intrusion w/o exposing to freeze/thaw cycles. Table 5-9 shows the durability
of American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix specimens after exposing to freeze/thaw
cycles. More detailed calculations are found in Appendix A.
0
2
4
6
8
10
Cl%
ab
sorb
ed (
lb./
yd3 )
Control Sikagard 705L Saltguard WB ATS-100 Masterprotec tH400 Aquanilplus 40
53
Table 5-9 Durability factors for American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix specimens.
Concrete Sealers
Modulus of Elasticity
% (Average of 300
cycles)
Durability
factor %
American Ready-
Mix
Control 96.3 96
Control 100.3 100
Sikagard 705L 98.9 99
Saltguard Wb 98.9 99
ATS-100 98.8 99
Masterprotect H400 94.8 95
Aquanil Plus 40 96.6 97
3D Ready-Mix
Control 93.4 93
Control 104.2 104
Sikagard 705L 100 100
Saltguard Wb 101.1 101
ATS-100 97.8 98
Masterprotect H400 102.1 102
Aquanil Plus 40 103 103
Table 5-10 shows the chloride amounts absorbed by control specimens and different
types of sealers applied to the American Ready-Mix samples.
Table 5-10 Chlorides values for sealers applied on American Ready-Mix specimens
exposed to freeze/thaw
Sealers
Amount of Chloride absorbed (lb./yd3)
First hole Second hole Third
hole Average
Standard
deviation
Control
ponded
10.397 9.539 7.917 7.941 1.683
7.631 6.916 5.246
Sikagard
705L
4.00 1.812 2.623 2.654 1.026
1.192 3.911 2.385
Saltguard WB 1.24 1.908 1.669
1.701 0.284 2.00 1.955 1.431
ATS-100 1.908 1.812 1.192
1.637 0.250 1.669 1.431 1.812
Masterprotect
H400
3.577 1.908 1.86 2.742 0.913
1.812 3.243 4.05
Aquanil Plus
40
2.154 6.105 5.246 4.4605 4.379
1.335 5.246 6.677
For the specimens of 3D concrete ready-mix, some samples gave very high numbers and
are completely irrelevant and far away from the expected range in comparison to the
other samples from the same specimens, and according to ASTM bias these samples were
rejected. Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9 show the average and the 95% confidence interval
54
for the control and five sealers specimens for both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-
Mix w/o exposure to freeze/thaw cycles.
Figure 5-8 95% confidence interval for American Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure
to freeze/thaw cycles
Figure 5-9 95% confidence interval for 3D Ready-Mix specimens w/o exposure
to freeze/thaw cycles
0
2
4
6
8
10
12C
l % a
bso
rbed
(lb
./yd
3 )
Control Sikagard 705L Saltguard WB ATS-100 Masterprotec tH400 Aquanilplus 40
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Cl %
ab
sorb
ed (
lb./
yd3)
Control Sikagard 705L ATS-100 Masterprotec tH400 Aquanilplus 40
55
Table 5-11 Chlorides values for sealers applied on 3D Ready-Mix specimens exposed to
freeze/thaw
Sealers
Amount of Chloride absorbed (lb./yd3)
First hole Second hole Third
hole Average
Standard
deviation
Control
ponded
3.196 4.531 12.878 6.097 3.228
4.769 4.293 6.916
Sikagard
705L
6.057 2.623 6.20 4.522 1.38
3.672 5.246 3.339
Saltguard WB ---- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
ATS-100 7.631 2.826 2.385
5.055 3.553 9.062 3.339 ----
Masterprotect
H400
5.246 7.393 ---- ---- 6.616
5.628 ---- ----
Aquanil Plus
40
7.154 5.962 7.154 6.295 0.744
5.008 6.057 6.439
After calculating the average amount of chlorides absorbed for each specimen sealed with
a sealer, a ratio between the average amount of chloride absorbed for each sealer and for
the control ponded specimen was calculated to see the effect of the sealers compared to
the control specimen in reducing the chloride ingress. For instance, the ratio for Sikagard
705L to the control ponded in the American Ready-Mix specimens that are not exposed
to freeze/thaw is 0.297. This means that Sikagrad 705L sealer was able to absorb about
30% from the chlorides absorbed by control ponded specimens and was able to reduce
70% from the chlorides absorbed by the ponded specimens. Table 5-12 shows the ratio of
the absorbed chlorides from the sealers to the control specimens.
56
Table 5-12 Ratio of amount of chloride absorbed for sealers to control ponded specimens
Concrete Sealer
Ratio of amount of chloride absorbed
Not exposed to
freeze/thaw cycles
Exposed to freeze/thaw
cycles
American
Ready-Mix
Control ponded 1.0 1.0
Sikagard 705L 0.297 0.334
Saltguard WB 0.370 0.345
ATS-100 0.612 0.206
Masterprotect H400 0.722 0.214
Aquanil Plus 40 0.776 0.562
3D Ready-Mix
Control ponded 1.0 1.0
Sikagard 705L 0.507 0.742
Saltguard WB 0.594 0.450
ATS-100 0.869 0.829
Masterprotect H400 1.071 N/A
Aquanil Plus 40 1.270 1.032
Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11 show a comparison graph between the ratios of the
absorbed chloride for the five sealers to the control ponded specimen, when exposed to
freeze/thaw cycles, and when not exposed to freeze/thaw cycles for both American
Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix respectively.
Figure 5-10 Ratio of chlorides absorbed for the five sealers with the ponded control
specimen for American Ready-Mix
Sealer A Sealer B Sealer C Sealer D Sealer E
Not exposed to F/T cycles" 0.297 0.722 0.612 0.370 0.776
Exposed to F/T cycles 0.334 0.214 0.206 0.345 0.847
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Cl-
rati
o a
bso
rbed
57
Figure 5-11 Ratio of chlorides absorbed for the five sealers with the ponded control
specimen for 3D Ready-Mix
5.5 Discussion of tests results
5.5.1 Rapid permeability test
This test was conducted on five deck sealers and on two types of concrete, American
Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix. The tests were conducted at two different stages: 30 days
and 120 days. The behavior of both concretes was different during the two stages.
For the first stage, 30 days, the amount of charge that passed through the concrete was
much higher in both concrete compared to the amount of charge passed during the second
stage, 120 days. This is because the concrete in its early age hasn’t become dense yet, and
it contains a lot of pores that allows a lot of charge to pass. While, at the later age, 120
days, the concrete has become denser, more mature, and the number of voids and pores
decrease, so the amount of charge that passes was lower than the charge that passes in the
first stage, 30 days.
Moreover, the 3D concrete seems to have less pores, and better performance in the first
stage. The charge that passed through the 3D concrete specimens was lower than that
passed through the American Ready-Mix. For stage 2, both concrete became dense so
there is no significant difference between the amounts of charge that passed through the
specimens of both concrete. The less pores in 3D concrete could be because of the type of
aggregate used. The aggregate used in the 3D concrete is Dayton #67 stone and #8 stone
while in American Ready-Mix is Western Nevada Materials “WNM” #67 and #8. Both of
the concretes have the same aggregate size, but different producer.
For the sealers, in general, all the sealers were very effective in reducing the amount of
charge that passed through the concrete. This means that the sealers made an insulation
layer that reduces the chlorides ingress.
Sealer A Sealer B Sealer C Sealer D Sealer E
Not exposed to F/T cycles 0.507 1.071 0.869 0.594 1.270
Exposed to F/T cycles 0.742 0.000 0.829 0.450 1.032
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Cl-
rati
o a
bso
rbed
58
For stage 1, 30 days, Aquanil Plus 40, Masterprotect H400, and ATS-100 gave the
highest performance among all the sealers in both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-
Mix.While, for stage 2, 120 days, the performance of all sealers were almost the same
and in the same permeability class, very low, which is below 1000 charge. However,
Sikagard 705L is the highest one among all sealers in this stage.
As mentioned in (section 5.2), the 95% confidence interval was applied on the control
specimens and specimens covered with sealers. The weighted score for the sealers
performance was according to the average charge passed, however for the best
performance sealers as Sikagard 705L and Masterprotect H400 the lowest interval are
either the same as the average category or even a better category. For example, using the
Sikagard 705L in American Ready-Mix, the average was moderate while the lowest
interval was category low; this means that using the 95% confidence interval data, the
performance of the sealer could be in the low category.
This test can be conducted with limited error (i.e. limited human error) because not much
work is done by hand, and most of the test is related to connecting the specimens to two
cells, instruments, and a computer. This is why this test had the highest weight when
comparisons were made between sealers as will be discussed later in this chapter.
5.5.2 Saltwater absorption
The saltwater absorption ratio for 7, 14, and 21 days were calculated for specimens sealed
with five sealers for both concrete. Sikagard 705L and Masterprotect H400 were the
lowest SAR % for 7, 14, or 21 days for American Ready-Mix. This gives an indication
that these two sealers were good in preventing the concrete in absorbing many salts,
which increase the specimen weight.
ATS-100, Sikagard 705L and Masterprotect H400 were the lowest SAR % for 7, 14,
or 21 days for 3D concrete. Aquanil plus 40 and Saltguard WB didn’t perform well in
this test. This test was straight forward with limited opportunity for error, because this
test is only calculating the specimen’s weight before immersing and after immersing in
the saltwater solution for different days; this test was given a high weighting when
making comparisons between sealers as will be shown later in this chapter.
5.5.3 Chloride ion intrusion test
As mentioned before, this test was conducted twice. One for specimens that were not
exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, and other for specimens that were exposed to freeze/thaw
cycles on both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix.
For both concrete, the American Ready-Mix and the 3D Ready-Mix, when not exposed to
freeze/thaw cycles, Sikagard 705L and Masterprotect H400 absorbed the least amount
of chlorides among the five sealers. These two sealers showed the best performance
among all the sealers. Figure 5-8 shows the average test results and the 95% confidence
intervals. Aquanil plus 40 showed the lowest average performance in this test. In Figure
5-11, Aquanil plus 40 shows a chloride ingress ratio that is greater than one, which
means that the chloride ingress is greater than the chloride ingress for control specimens.
As shown in Figure 5-8, Aquanil plus 40 has the largest 95% confidence interval; this is
59
because the standard deviation was largest for this sealer. For Aquanil plus 40 the lowest
portion of the 95% confidence interval provide a ratio that is below one.
When the specimens were exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, Sikgard 705L gave a lower
performance than when not exposed to freeze/thaw cycles. While all the other sealers
gave a higher performance; this could be a questionable issue that the sealers performed
better when exposed to freeze/thaw cycles. A recommendation for additional research is
to study the behavior of sealers when exposed to freeze/thaw cycles on many specimens
to have more data, so that more definite conclusions can be established. Among all the
sealers, ATS-100 and Masterprotect H400 performed the best in American Ready-Mix
specimens. For 3D Ready-Mix specimens, Saltguard WB gave the highest performance.
5.6 Sealers performance categories
After finishing all the test, the sealers were classified into different categories according
to their performance. These categories are I, II, and III. Category I is for the best
performance, for sealers that gave absorption values below the average, Category III is
for the lowest performance, for sealers gave absorption values above average, and
Category II in between, for sealers that gave values around the average. Sealers are
classified separately in each test according to the results of each test.
.. The saltwater absorption test, rapid chloride permeability “120 days” test, and chloride
ion intrusion test without exposure to freeze/thaw were given the highest score (weight)
because they provide important information about sealer performance and have low
probability of error after the 95% confidence interval study. The scores for these tests are
45, 30, and 15 for categories I, II, and III respectively. While for rapid permeability test
“30 days” and the chloride ion intrusion test with exposure to freeze/thaw were given a
score 30, 20, and 10 for categories I, II, and III respectively. The rapid permeability test
“30 days” had a low 95% confidence interval but because the concrete was not mature
this will affect the results and not be as representative as what will be found in the field.
Therefore this test was given a a lower weight when comparing the performance of the
different sealers. For the chloride ion intrusion test with exposure to freeze/thaw, the
95% confidence interval was very high, therefore the test was given a lower weight.
After giving a certain score for each sealer according to its performance category and
according to the test conducted, a total score was given to each sealer as an overall score
according to the average score for the sealers in each test; this will provide an overall
measure of how each of the sealers performed.
60
Table 5-13 and Table 5-14 show the classifications of sealers according to their
categories in different tests, and the scores for the American Ready-Mix specimens and
3D Ready-Mix specimens respectively. Table 5-15 show the total score for each sealer
for both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix, and Figure 5-12 shows a
corresponding graph to these total scores of sealers.
61
Table 5-13 Classification of sealers into different categories according to their
performance for American Ready-Mix
Test Sealer Performance
Category Score
Chloride ion intrusion
“not exposed to
freeze/thaw”
Sikagard 705 L I 45
MasterProtect H400
ATS-100 II 30
Saltguard WB III 15
Aquanil plus 40
ATS-100
I 30 Chloride ion intrusion Saltguard WB
“exposed to
freeze/thaw” Sikagard 705 L
II 20
MasterProtect H400
Aquanil plus 40 III 10
Aquanil plus 40 I 30
Rapid Chloride Sikagard 705 L
II 20 Permeability Masterprotect H400
“30 days” ATS-100
Saltguard WB
Sikagard 705 L
I 45 Rapid Chloride MasterProtect H400
Permeability ATS-100 II 30
“120 days” Saltguard WB
Aquanil plus 40 NA NA
Sikagard 705 L
I 45
MasterProtect H400
Saltwater absorption ATS-100 II 30
21 days Aquanil plus 40
Saltguard WB III 15
62
Table 5-14 Classification of sealers into different categories according to their
performance for 3D concrete
Test Sealer Performance
Category Score
Sikagard 705 L
I 45
MasterProtect H400
Chloride ion intrusion ATS-100 II 30
Without exposed
freeze/thaw Saltguard WB
III 15
Aquanil plus 40
MasterProtect H400 I 30
Chloride ion intrusion ATS-100 II 20
exposed to freeze/thaw Sikagard 705 L
Aquanil plus 40 III 10
Saltguard WB NA NA
Aquanil plus 40
I 30 Rapid Chloride MasterProtect H400
Permeability ATS-100
“30 days” Saltguard WB II 20
Sikagard 705 L
Sikagard 705 L
I 45 Rapid Chloride MasterProtect H400
Permeability ATS-100
“120 days” Saltguard WB II 30
Aquanil plus 40 NA NA
Sikagard 705 L
I 45
Aquanil plus 40
Saltwater absorption ATS-100 II 30
21 days MasterProtect H400
Saltguard WB III 15
63
Table 5-15 Total score for all the sealers
Concrete Sealer Total
Score
American
Ready-
Mix
Sikagard 705 L 175
MasterProtect H400 175
ATS-100 140
Saltguard WB 110
Aquanil plus 40 85
3D
Ready-
Mix
Sikagard 705 L 175
MasterProtect H400 180
ATS-100 155
Saltguard WB 80
Aquanil plus 40 100
Figure 5-12 Graph for the total score and comparison between all the sealers
Sikagard705 L
Masterpro-tect H400
ATS-100Saltguard
WBAquanilPlus 40
American Concrete 175 175 140 110 85
3D Concrete 175 180 155 80 100
0
40
80
120
160
200
Co
mp
aris
on
Sco
re
Sealers
64
5.7 Sealers discussions
• Sikagard 705 L is a low viscosity, penetrating sealer, 100% Alkylalkoxy Silane,
water based.
• MasterProtect H 400 is a 40% Alkylalkoxy Silane penetrating sealer, water-
based.
• ATS-100 is a penetrating sealer, 100% Alkyltrialkoxy Silane, water-based.
• Aquanil Plus 40 is a penetrating, chemically reactive Alkyltrialkoxy Silane 40%
solids, solvent based Silane sealer.
• Saltguard WB is a penetrating sealer, 5% silane/siloxane, water-based sealer.
According to the total score for all the sealers, Sikagard 705 L and Masterprotect H400
gave the highest performance after all the tests. These two sealers are Alkylalkoxy Silane,
penetrating sealers, water based. The water-based sealers gave better performance than
the solvent-based sealers. Therefore, the primary recommendation from this project for
deck sealers is to use sealers that are Alkylalkoxy Silane and water-based sealer.
There is no significant relation between the percentage of active ingredient of the sealers
and its performance in this study. However, from previous research, there is a significant
relation between the depth of penetration and the performance of the sealers. Among the
tested five sealers, Sikagard 705 L had the biggest depth of penetration (>10 mm)
according to the manufacturer. The more the depth of penetration, the better the
performance of the sealer in reducing the chloride ingress in the concrete.
Moreover, the water-based sealers are friendlier to the environment than the solvent
based, due to the lower Volatile organic compound (VOC) in the water-based sealers.
The difference between the water-based sealers, and the solvent-based sealers are
discussed before in chapter 2: Literature Review.
According to the manufacturer, the chloride reduction for Sikagard 705 L and
Masterprotect H400 were the highest according to NCHRP Report 244 series II and
series IV. No information was provided from the manufacturer about the viscosity of
these sealers, but as seen by visual inspection, all the sealers were liquid with a very low
viscosity.
In general, all the sealers were effective in reducing the amount of chlorides penetrated
into the concrete compared to the control specimens, but one sealer could give higher
performance in a particular test compared to another. Finally, based on the laboratory
tests, Sikagard 705 L, and Masterprotect H400, and any water-based sealer made of
Alkylalkoxy Silane, with bigger depth of penetration, usually >10 mm is recommended
to Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to be used in newly constructed bridge.
5.8 Sealers cost perspective
A comparison was made between all the sealers from a cost perspective. Moreover, the
equipment, and labor cost are different from one project to another, from one state to
another, and also depend on the size of the project. Roughly according to contractors that
were contacted, the application of sealers for a 10,000 ft2 cost about 30 cents per ft2 for
labor and applications only. Table 5-16 shows the cost for sealer’s application
65
Table 5-16 Coverage rate (ft2/gal) and cost for 5 gallons for five deck sealers
Sealers Coverage rate
(ft2 / gal)
Cost per 5
gallon
“Material”
Labor and
equipment
cost
Total cost
for 10K ft2
bridge
Sikagard 705L 240 to 360 $330
About 40 cents
per ft2
$6310
Masterprotect
H400 100 to 200 $135
$5755
Saltguard WB 200 to 300 $150 $5875
ATS-100 200 to 300 $165 $5200
Aquanil plus 40 100 to 150 $250 $7500
66
Chapter 6 Test Results And Discussion- Crack Sealers
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, test results for the crack sealers experiments will be presented and
discussed. The two tests that were conducted and will be discussed are depth of
penetration test (Section 6.2) and bond strength test (Section 6.3). The sealers will be
ranked according to their performance in (Section 6.4).
6.2 Depth of penetration test
The depth of penetration test was examined by visually inspection with the naked
eye for the concrete specimens. Two cross sections were cut from the edge of the
specimens used in bond strength test whose dimensions are 8 in by 4 in by 3 in and then
examined. For all the specimens, the crack sealers penetrated through the whole depth of
the concrete specimen approximately 2.5 inches without any voids independent of the
crack width. Figure 6-1 shows cross sections for specimens with a full penetration of the
crack sealers for the two different crack widths that were investigated.
(a) (b)
Figure 6-1 Full penetration for a crack sealer in a crack of (a) 0.09 in (b) 0.15 in
6.3 Bond strength test
Six crack sealers were tested to compare their performance in sealing the concrete
cracks. Both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix were sealed with six sealers and
then tested. For each sealer and for both concrete types, two specimens were tested (0.09
in and 0.15 in).
Different modes of failure were noticed for the specimens. Modes of failure were:
concrete failure, sealer failure and interface failure. Some specimens failed with two
different modes combined together. Figure 6-2 shows different mode of failure for the
crack and the concrete.
67
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6-2 Modes failures for crack sealers (a) Concrete Failure (b) Interface Failure (c)
Concrete and Sealer failure
6.3.1 Narrow Crack width (0.09 in.)
The results for the bond strength test for the American Ready-Mix varied from
680 lbs to 8155 lbs. The results for the 3D Ready-Mix varied from 2040 lbs to 7130 lbs.
Table 6-1 shows the bond strength and mode of failure for American Ready-Mix for 0.09
in. and Table 6-2 shows the bond strength and mode of failure for 3D Ready-Mix
for 0.09 in.
Sikadur 55 SLV gave the highest bond strength among the six sealers in both
American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix specimens. T-78 Polymer gave the lowest
bond strength among the six sealers in American Ready-Mix while KBP 204 gave the
lowest strength in 3D Ready-Mix. Figure 6-3 shows a graph for the bond strength for
different sealers used to seal the American Ready-Mix concrete for a crack width 0.09 in,
and
Figure 6-4 shows a graph for the bond strength for different sealers used to seal the 3D
Ready-Mix of a crack width 0.09 in
Table 6-1 Bond strength and mode of failure for American Ready-Mix for 0.09 in.
American
Concrete
Sealer Bond Strength
(lbs) Mode of Failure
Duraguard HM Sealer 6545 Concrete
Sikadur 55 SLV 8155 Concrete & Interface
Sikadur 22, LO-MOD 4320 Concrete
MasterSeal 630 7715 Interface
KBP 204 5205 Concrete & Interface
T-78 Polymer 680 Interface
68
Table 6-2 Bond strength and mode of failure for 3D Ready-Mix for 0.09 in.
3D
Concrete
Sealer Bond Strength
(lbs) Mode of Failure
Duraguard HM Sealer 4145 Concrete
Sikadur 55 SLV 7130 Concrete
Sikadur 22, LO-MOD 4680 Concrete & Interface
MasterSeal 630 2570 Concrete
KBP 204 2040 Interface
T-78 Polymer 5065 Concrete
Figure 6-3 Bond strength for American Ready-Mix for 0.09 in.
6454
8155
4320
7715
5205
680
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
DuraguardHM Sealer
Sikadur 55SLV
Sikadur 22,LO-MOD
MasterSeal630
KBP 204 T-78 Polymer
Bo
nd
Str
engh
(lb
s)
69
Figure 6-4 Bond strength for 3D Ready-Mix for 0.09 in.
6.3.2 Wide Crack width (0.15 in.)
The results for the bond strength test for American Ready-Mix specimens varied
from 1485 lbs to 6980 lbs. The results for the 3D Ready-Mix specimens varied from 905
lbs to 5480 lbs. Table 6-3 shows the bond strength and mode of failure for American
Ready-Mix for 0.15 in. Table 6-4 shows the bond strength and mode of failure for 3D
Ready-Mix for 0.15 in. Duraguard HM Sealer and Sikadur 55 SLV gave the highest
bond strength among the six sealers in both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix
specimens. T-78 Polymer gave the lowest bond strength among the six sealers in both
American Ready-Mix and in 3D Ready-Mix. Figure 6-5 shows a graph for the bond
strength for different sealers used to seal the American Ready-Mix for a crack width 0.15
in, and Figure 6-6 shows a graph for the bond strength for different sealers used to seal
the 3D Ready-Mix for a crack width 0.15 in.
Table 6-3 Bond strength and mode of failure for American Ready-Mix for 0.15 in.
American
Concrete
Sealer Bond Strength
(lbs) Failure
Duraguard HM Sealer 6980 Concrete
Sikadur 55 SLV 5815 Concrete
Sikadur 22, LO-MOD 4580 Concrete & Interface
MasterSeal 630 2825 Interface
KBP 204 2210 Interface
T-78 Polymer 1485 Concrete & Interface
4145
7130
4680
2570
2040
5065
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Duraguard HMSealer
Sikadur 55 SLV Sikadur 22,LO-MOD
MasterSeal630
KBP 204 T-78 Polymer
Bo
nd
Str
engt
h (
lbs)
70
Table 6-4 Bond strength and mode of failure for 3D Ready-Mix for 0.15 in.
3D
Concrete
Sealer Bond Strength
(lbs) Failure
Duraguard HM Sealer 5480 Concrete
Sikadur 55 SLV 3545 Concrete
Sikadur 22, LO-MOD 3315 Concrete & Sealer
MasterSeal 630 2135 Interface
KBP 204 1580 Interface
T-78 Polymer 905 Interface
Figure 6-5 Bond strength for American Ready-Mix for 0.15 in.
6980
5815
4580
2825
2210
1485
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
DuraguardHM Sealer
Sikadur 55SLV
Sikadur 22,LO-MOD
MasterSeal630
KBP 204 T-78 Polymer
Bo
nd
Str
engt
h (
lbs)
71
Figure 6-6 Bond strength for 3D Concrete for 0.15 in.
6.4 Discussion of test results
6.4.1 Effect of viscosity of sealers
Among the six tested sealers, some sealers are more viscous than the others. All the
tested sealers penetrated through the whole depth of the crack either for 0.09 in. or 0.15
in.; this indicated that all the tested sealers have a good range of viscosity that should be
able to penetrate through small cracks. Viscosity of the sealers is such an important point
of comparison between sealers. It is critical that the sealer be able to penetrate through
the whole depth. The viscosity of the sealers was one of the main criteria for the section
of the sealers that were tested sealers. As mentioned in (section 3.3), sealers that were
selected have a viscosity in the range of 10 to 100 cps and other sealer in the range of
2000 cps, which was found to be sufficient in the tests, conducted.
6.4.2 Failure mode
Three main failure modes occurred in the breaking of the specimens. Concrete failure,
sealer failure and interface failure. Also, some specimens have combined modes of
failure
(i.e. concrete and interface failure or concrete and sealer failure). Concrete failure
occurred in specimens that used sealers that had high bond strength. The specimens with
lower bond strength sealers displayed interface failure. Concrete failure is the preferred
mode of failure because this means that the sealer adhered enough (i.e. good bond
between the sealer and the concrete) to the concrete and the sealer was strong enough to
withstand the high bond stress. Thus, sealers that fail with concrete failure could be a
good indication for a high bond strength.
5480
35453315
2135
1580
905
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
DuraguardHM Sealer
Sikadur 55SLV
Sikadur 22,LO-MOD
MasterSeal630
KBP 204 T-78 Polymer
Bo
nd
Str
engt
h (
lbs)
72
As the crack width increased, concrete failures became less common, and the most
common failures are a combination between concrete and interface failures. Also, when
the amount of sealer is increased within a specimen and this occur when the crack width
is increased, this weakens the area between the crack and the sealer compared with the
surrounding concrete. The amount of the sealer enclosed is large enough to withstand the
strength and stiffness of the cross section. Therefore, interface failure and/or sealer
failures can be expected to occur with increasing crack width.
6.4.2.1 For narrow crack width (0.09 in.)
Sikadur 22, LO-MOD in 3D Ready Mix, Sikadur 55 SLV, and KBP 204 in American
Ready-Mix displayed concrete & interface failure, however they were expected to have
only concrete failure due to their high bond strength despite the large bond strength.
Masterseal 630 in American Ready-Mix had an interface mode of failure despite the
high bond strength while a concrete failure mode in 3D Ready-Mix. Sikadur 55 SLV
gave the highest bond strength in both American Ready-Mix and 3D Ready-Mix. Among
the American Ready-Mix specimens, T-78 polymer gave the lowest bond strength and
among the 3D Ready-Mix specimens, KBP 204 gave the lowest bond strength.
6.4.2.2 For wide crack width (0.15 in.)
Only Sikadur 22, LO-MOD, in American Ready-Mix that displayed concrete &
interface failure despite the high bond strength value. In both concrete, Duraguard HM,
Sikadur 55 SLV, and Sikadur 22, LO-MOD gave higher bond strength, while the other
three sealers, MasterSeal 630, KBP 204, and T-78 Polymer gave the lower bond
strength. The latter three sealers are formulated, high molecular weight methacrylate
monomer composition.
6.4.3 Sealers discussion
Duraguard HM is 100% solids, high modulus epoxy sealer with a very low
viscosity.
Sikadur 55 SLV is a 100% solids, epoxy crack sealer with a very low viscosity.
Sikadur 22, LO-MOD is Lo-Mod is a 2-component, 100% solids, moisture-
tolerant, epoxy resin binder with medium-viscosity.
MasterSeal 630is a very low viscosity, low surface tension, solvent-free, rapid
curing reactive methacrylate resin.
KBP 204is a formulated, high molecular weight methacrylate monomer composition,
and low viscosity penetrant.
T-78 Polymer is a very low viscosity, low surface tension, rapid curing methacrylate
reactive resin.
6.4.4 Sealers performance evaluation
73
Based on the above results and discussion, the performance of the sealers could be
presented as A, B, C for best, moderate, and lowest performance respectively. Table 6-5
shows the ranked sealers from best to lowest performance according to their bond
strength. The average bond strength for all the sealers was assigned to category B, above
average is A, and below average is C.
Epoxies materials gave higher bond strength than methacrylate, while methacrylate have
lower viscosity and it could penetrate more in the cracks. Therefore, if the bond strength
is more important than depth of penetration, epoxies materials are recommended to be
used. While, if the depth of penetration is more important than bond strength,
methacrylate materials have to be used.
Table 6-5 Performance evaluation of different crack sealers
Narrow crack (0.09 in.) Wide crack (0.15 in.)
Sealer Concrete
type Performance Sealer
Concrete
type Performance
Sikadur 55
SLV
American Ready-Mix
A
Duraguard
HM Sealer
American Ready-Mix
A MasterSeal
630 Sikadur 55
SLV Duraguard
HM Sealer
B
Sikadur22,LO-
MOD
KBP 204 MasterSeal
630 B
Sikadur22,LO-
MOD KBP 204
T-78 Polymer C T-78 Polymer C
Sealer Concrete
type Performance Sealer
Concrete
type Performance
Sikadur 55
SLV
3D Ready-Mix
A Duraguard
HM Sealer
3D Ready-Mix
A
Sikadur22,LO-
MOD
B
Sikadur 55
SLV
B Duraguard
HM Sealer Sikadur22,LO-
MOD
T-78 Polymer MasterSeal
630 MasterSeal
630 C T-78 Polymer
C KBP 204 KBP 204
74
Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions
7.1 Summary
Deck and crack sealers are a good solution for reducing the chloride ingress into
concrete. These chlorides come mainly from the reaction of the deicing salts with snow
and ice. Deck and crack sealers have been used in different states, but currently the
Nevada Department of Transportation use overlays to protect decks and extend life, not
sealers. The usage of sealers could be critical and useful in extending bridge deck life,
and reducing the time and cost for replacing the deck.
The primary objective of this research was to develop a guide for using deck and crack
sealers in Nevada and the surrounding states. This includes areas of extreme dry heat to
mountainous regions with snow and deicing salts. The primary focus of this research was
to take the best practice in the use of deck and crack sealers from other states, conduct
additional experiments and analysis, and determine the best implementation plan. The
research objective was achieved through four main tasks. The first one was the literature
review; the background of sealers was studied to understand the behavior of the sealers
and chemical properties and chemical families. Moreover, research done by other states
DOTs regarding deck and crack sealers and their behavior was studied. The second task
was to plan the experimental program including the types of tests to conduct, the number
of specimens needed, and the specimen’s dimensions. The third task was the laboratory
tests: some of them were conducted at UNR and one was conducted in Denver, Colorado
and completed at UNR. All the tests were according to AASHTO, ASTM, and NCHRP
series II and IV. Finally, the performance of all the sealers was discussed based on the
laboratory test results, assigned into different categories according to their performance,
and application recommendations were made. Also, 95% confidence interval study was
done for the precision and bias of the results for all the tests..
The experimental program was conducted on two types of concrete, American Ready-
Mix, and 3D Ready-Mix. Twelve deck sealers were initially examined, and five were
chosen to be tested. Eighteen crack sealers were discussed, and six crack sealers were
chosen to be tested. The sealers were chosen according to different criteria as stated
before and with the acceptance by NDOT.
7.2 Deck sealers tests observations
Generally, all the deck sealers were effective in reducing the amount of chlorides ingress
into the concrete. Some sealers gave a higher performance than the other in one or more
tests.
7.2.1 Rapid chloride permeability test
Concrete become more mature with time, so the amount of charge that
passes decreases.
75
For stage 1, after 30 days, Aquanil plus 40, Masterprotect H400, and
ATS-100 gave the highest performance among all the sealers in both
concrete mixes.
For stage 2, after 120 days, the performance class for all sealers were the
same, very low, which is below 1000 coulomb. However, Sikagard 705L
was the lowest one among all sealers in this stage.
The weighted score for this test was assigned according to the
permeability class for the average amount of charge passed.
7.2.2 Saltwater absorption test
Sikagard 705L and Masterprotect H400 had the lowest SAR % for all
days, 7, 14 and 21 days for both concretes investigated.
7.2.3 Chloride ion intrusion test
For both concretes, when not exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, Sikagard
705L and Masterprotect H400 gave the highest performance.
Aquanil plus 40 had the lowest performance among all the sealers,
however the lowest interval showed some protection against chlorides.
For the specimens exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, Sikgard 705L gave a
lower performance than no exposure to ` cycles.
When exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, for American Ready-Mix concrete
specimens, ATS-100 and Masterprotect H400 gave the highest
performance.
When exposed to freeze/thaw cycles, for 3D Ready-Mix concrete
specimens, Saltguard WB gave the highest performance.
7.3 Deck sealers discussion
• Silane sealers gave higher performance than siloxanes sealers.
• According to the laboratory tests, water-based sealers provided higher
performance.
• Water based sealers are friendly from environmental perspective, because their
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) are lower than solvent based sealers.
• The higher the depth of penetration, the better performance for the sealers in
reducing the chlorides ingress into the concrete.
• Sikagard 705 L and Masterprotect H400 were the highest according to the
manufacturer for absorbed chloride for NCHRP Report 244 series II and series
IV.
76
7.4 Crack sealers tests observations
7.4.1 Depth of penetration test
• All the sealers were able to penetrate through the cracks depth whether
the width was 0.09 inch or 0.15 inch.
• The viscosities of the tested sealers were good for the narrow and wide
cracks.
7.4.2 Bond strength test
• For narrow crack width 0.09 inch, Sikadur 55 SLV gave the highest
bond strength for both concretes.
• For wide crack width 0.15 inch, Duraguard HM Sealer and Sikadur
55 SLV gave the highest bond strength for both concretes.
• The mode of failure for Sikadur 55 SLV in the American Ready-Mix
concrete with a 0.09 inch crack was concrete & interface failure, while
the failure mode for Duraguard HM Sealer and Sikadur 55 SLV in
both concretes and both crack widths was concrete failure.
• Width of the crack did affect the mode of failure.
• As the amount of sealer was increased within a specimen, the area
enclosing the crack and sealer becomes weaker in comparison with the
surrounding concrete. Therefore, a larger number of interface and/or
sealer failures can be expected occur with increasing crack width.
7.5 Crack sealers discussion
Epoxies sealers gave higher performance for bond strength than
methacrylate.
The viscosity of all the sealers were good for penetrating the whole
depth of both 0.09 in. and 0.15 in. cracks.
In general the viscosity of methacrylate was lower than the epoxies, so
they could penetrate deeper through very narrow cracks.
Modes of failure is important in determining the behavior and
performance of the sealer.
Concrete failure is better than sealer failure or interface failure because
this gives an indication about the level of bond between concrete and
sealer.
If the bond strength is more important than depth of penetration, epoxies
sealers are a very good choice.
If the depth of penetration is more important than the bond strength,
methacrylate sealers are a very good choice.
77
The number of cracks defines the application of the sealers. A large
number of cracks can be sprayed with sealer, but small number of cracks
can be injected individually.
7.6 Conclusions
a) Generally, all the deck sealers were effective in reducing the amount of
chlorides ingress into the concrete. Silane sealers gave higher performance
than siloxanes sealers, and water-based sealers gave a higher performance
than solvent based sealers. Water-based sealers are more environmentally
friendly because of the low volatile organic compound (VOC).
b) The higher the depth of penetration of the sealer, the better performance of the
sealers in reducing the chlorides ingress into the concrete.
c) Sealers with chemical family of Alkylalkoxy silane gave higher performance
among all the other sealers, and it is recommended to use sealer of
Alkylalkoxy silane and water-based sealer.
d) Epoxies sealers provided higher performance for bond strength than
methacrylate sealers. While for depth of penetration, methacrylate sealers
could penetrate deeper into cracks because their viscosity is lower than the
epoxies.
e) According to a research done in Colorado DOT in 2014, all the sealers
reduced skid resistance compared to the unsealed deck, so it is necessarily to
use high friction surface treatments or aggregates on the top of the sealers to
make the surface rough and increase the skid resistance.
7.7 Recommendations for future testing
a) A detailed study need to be done on sealers exposed to freeze/thaw cycles
to understand the behavior of these sealers under exposure to these cycles.
b) A study between the sealers and the commonly used overlays is needed.
This study should distinguish between the performances of the sealers
versus the overlays over time.
c) Alkyltrialkoxysilane which is the chemical family of Aquanilplus 40 gave
a poor performance in one of the laboratory tests and better performance
in another test. This sealer need to be studied under different conditions to
assess its performance.
d) Sikagard 705L gave the best performance in chloride ion intrusion test,
while its performance was poor after exposing to freeze/thaw cycles. The
chemical family of Sikagard 705L is Alkylalkoxy silane which gave the
best performance throughout all the tests except for the freeze/thaw cycles.
78
References
Aitkin, C. T., & Litvan, G. G. (1989). Laboratory investigation of concrete
sealers. Concrete International, 11(11), 37-42.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. AASHTO T259
Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. AASHTO T260
Standard Method of Test for Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete
and Concrete Raw Materials.
American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C1202 Standard Test Method for
Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C143 Standard Test Method for
Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete.
American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C231 Standard Test Method for Air
Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method.
American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C666 Standard Test Method for
Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing.
American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E177-14 Standard Practice for Use
of the Terms Precision and Bias in ASTM Test Methods
Basheer, L., Cleland, D. J., & Long, A. E. (1998). Protection provided by surface
treatments against chloride induced corrosion. Materials and Structures, 31(7),
459-464.
Clear, K. (1976). Permanent bridge deck repair. Public Roads, 39(2).
Clear, K. C., & Hay, R. E. (1973). Time-to-corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete
slabs vol 1. effect of mix design and construction parameters (No. FHWA-RD-73-
32 Intrm Rpt.).
Fowler, D. W. (1986). Use of high molecular weight methacrylate for repairing cracks in
concrete. In Adhesion between polymers and concrete/Adhésion entre polymères
et béton (pp. 438-450). Springer, Boston, MA.
Johnson, K., Schultz, A. E., French, C., & Reneson, J. (2009). Crack and concrete deck
sealant performance
79
Krauss, P. D., & Rogalla, E. A. (1996). Transverse cracking in newly constructed bridge
decks (No. Project 12-37 FY'92).
Liang, Y. C., Gallaher, B., & Xi, Y. (2014). Evaluation of Bridge Deck Sealers (No.
CDOT-2014-6)
Meggers, D. A. (1998). Crack Sealing and Repair of Older Serviceable Bridges Using
Polymer Sealers (No. FHWA-KS-98-4,, Final Report). NTIS.
Marks, V. J. (1988). High molecular weight methacrylate sealing of a bridge deck
(No. 1204)
Morse, K. L. (2009). Effectiveness of Concrete Deck Sealers and Laminates for Chloride
Protection of New and In Situ Reinforced Bridge Decks in Illinois. Illinois
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Materials and Physical Research.
National Cooperative Highway Research program. NCHRP report 244 Concrete Sealers
for Protection of Bridge Structures series II.
Newman, A. (2001). Structural renovation of buildings: Methods, details, and design
examples. McGraw-Hill.
Nielsen, J., Murgel, G., & Farid, A. (2011). Investigation of concrete sealer products to
extend concrete pavement life: phase 1 (No. FHWA-ID-2011-194). Idaho.
Transportation Dept.
Pfeifer, D. W., & Scali, M. J. (1981). Concrete Sealers for Protection of Bridge
Structures. NCHRP Report 244. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Pincheira, J. A., & Dorshorst, M. A. (2005). Evaluation of concrete deck and crack
sealers (No. WHRP 06-09). Wisconsin Highway Research Program.
Soriano, A. (2002). Alternative sealants for bridge decks (No. SD2001-04-D).
Sprinkel, M. M., & DeMars, M. (1995). Gravity-fill polymer crack
sealers. Transportation research record, (1490)
Whiting, N. (2005). Technical Memorandum: Field Application of Bridge Deck Sealers –
Stillwater Bridge #4654. Minnesota Department of Transportation: Office of
Materials, Minnesota Road Research, Maplewood, MN.
80
Whiting, N. (2006). Technical Memorandum: Bridge of Hope #05011 – Sealing and
Chloride Intrusion. Minnesota Department of Transportation: Office of Materials,
Minnesota Road Research, Maplewood, MN.
Whiting, N. (2006). Technical Memorandum: TH 100 Bridge #27254 – Sealing and
Chloride Intrusion. Minnesota Department of Transportation: Office of Materials,
Minnesota Road Research, Maplewood, MN.
81
Appendix A: Sample calculation for Durability Factor
calculation for three American Ready-Mix specimens
Specimen 1
Date Period Cycles
Weight (lbs) Resonant
Frequency 1 Selected Fundamental
Frequency Cumulative Cycles
03/01/17 0 16.930 1679 1679 0
03/08/17 36 16.930 1677 1677 36
03/15/17 36 16.940 1652 1652 72
03/22/17 36 16.960 1650 1650 108
03/29/17 36 16.970 1648 1648 144
04/05/17 36 16.975 1644 1644 180
04/12/17 36 16.925 1641 1641 216
04/19/17 36 16.905 1645 1645 252
04/26/17 36 16.890 1647 1647 288
05/03/17 36 16.835 1649 1649 324
Date Period cycles
Cumulative cycles
Weight (lbs) #1 Resonant Frequency #1 Relative Dynamic
Modulus of Elasticity #1
03/01/17 0 0 16.930 1679 100
03/08/17 36 36 16.930 1677 99.8%
03/15/17 36 72 16.940 1652 96.8%
03/22/17 36 108 16.960 1650 96.6%
03/29/17 36 144 16.970 1648 96.3%
04/05/17 36 180 16.975 1644 95.9%
04/12/17 36 216 16.925 1641 95.5%
04/19/17 36 252 16.905 1645 96.0%
04/26/17 36 288 16.890 1647 96.2%
05/03/17 36 324 16.835 1649 96.5%
Average at 300 cycles:
96.3%
Durability Factor 96%
82
Specimen 2:
Date Period Cycles
Weight (lbs) Resonant
Frequency 1 Selected Fundamental
Frequency Cumulative Cycles
03/01/17 0 16.670 1625 1625 0
03/08/17 36 16.665 1622 1622 36
03/15/17 36 16.665 1626 1626 72
03/22/17 36 16.705 1624 1624 108
03/29/17 36 16.715 1618 1618 144
04/05/17 36 16.665 1614 1614 180
04/12/17 36 16.635 1613 1613 216
04/19/17 36 16.625 1615 1615 252
04/26/17 36 16.620 1616 1616 288
05/03/17 36 16.575 1616 1616 324
Date Period cycles
Cumulative cycles
Weight (lbs) #1 Resonant Frequency #1 Relative Dynamic
Modulus of Elasticity #1
03/01/17 0 0 16.670 1625 100
03/08/17 36 36 16.665 1622 99.6%
03/15/17 36 72 16.665 1626 100.1%
03/22/17 36 108 16.705 1624 99.9%
03/29/17 36 144 16.715 1618 99.1%
04/05/17 36 180 16.665 1614 98.7%
04/12/17 36 216 16.635 1613 98.5%
04/19/17 36 252 16.625 1615 98.8%
04/26/17 36 288 16.620 1616 98.9%
05/03/17 36 324 16.575 1616 98.9%
Average at 300 cycles: 98.9%
Durability Factor 99%
83
Appendix B: Sample calculation for Durability Factor
calculation for three 3D Ready-Mix specimens
Specimen 1:
Date Period Cycles
Weight (lbs.) Resonant
Frequency 1 Selected Fundamental
Frequency Cumulative Cycles
03/01/17 0 15.960 1457 1457 0
03/08/17 36 15.925 1443 1443 36
03/15/17 36 16 1461 1461 72
03/22/17 36 16.015 1461 1461 108
03/29/17 36 16.02 1462 1462 144
04/05/17 36 16.02 1459 1459 180
04/12/17 36 16.025 1456 1456 216
04/19/17 36 16 1455 1455 252
04/26/17 36 15.950 1457 1457 288
05/03/17 36 15.875 1458 1458 324
Date Period cycles
Cumulative cycles
Weight (lbs.) #1 Resonant Frequency
#1
Relative Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity
#1
03/01/17 0 0 15.960 1457 100
03/08/17 36 36 15.925 1443 98.1%
03/15/17 36 72 16 1461 100.5%
03/22/17 36 108 16.015 1461 100.5%
03/29/17 36 144 16.02 1462 100.7%
04/05/17 36 180 16.02 1459 100.3%
04/12/17 36 216 16.025 1456 99.9%
04/19/17 36 252 16 1455 99.7%
04/26/17 36 288 15.950 1457 100.0%
05/03/17 36 324 15.875 1458 100.1%
Average at 300 cycles: 100.0%
Durability Factor 100%
84
Specimen 2:
Date Period Cycles
Weight (lbs.) Resonant
Frequency 1 Selected Fundamental
Frequency Cumulative Cycles
03/01/17 0 15.505 1565 1565 0
03/08/17 36 15.495 1557 1557 36
03/15/17 36 15.565 1563 1563 72
03/22/17 36 15.570 1565 1565 108
03/29/17 36 15.555 1566 1566 144
04/05/17 36 15.550 1568 1568 180
04/12/17 36 15.550 1569 1569 216
04/19/17 36 15.545 1571 1571 252
04/26/17 36 15.545 1572 1572 288
05/03/17 36 15.460 1576 1576 324
Date Period cycles
Cumulative cycles
Weight (lbs.) #1 Resonant Frequency #1 Relative Dynamic
Modulus of Elasticity #1
03/01/17 0 0 15.505 1565 100
03/08/17 36 36 15.495 1557 99.0%
03/15/17 36 72 15.565 1563 99.7%
03/22/17 36 108 15.570 1565 100.0%
03/29/17 36 144 15.555 1566 100.1%
04/05/17 36 180 15.550 1568 100.4%
04/12/17 36 216 15.550 1569 100.5%
04/19/17 36 252 15.545 1571 100.8%
04/26/17 36 288 15.545 1572 100.9%
05/03/17 36 324 15.460 1576 101.4%
Average at 300 cycles: 101.1%
Durability Factor 101%
85
Appendix C: Report calculation for amount of charge
passed through one of the sealers in rapid chloride
permeability test for American Ready-Mix after 30 days
86
Appendix D: Report calculation for amount of charge
passed through one of the sealers in rapid chloride
permeability test for American Ready-Mix after 120 days
87
LIST OF CCEER PUBLICATIONS
Report No. Publication
CCEER-84-1 Saiidi, M., and R. Lawver, “User's Manual for LZAK-C64, A Computer Program
to Implement the Q-Model on Commodore 64,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-84-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1984.
CCEER-84-1 Douglas, B., Norris, G., Saiidi, M., Dodd, L., Richardson, J. and Reid, W., “Simple
Bridge Models for Earthquakes and Test Data,” Civil Engineering Department, Report
No. CCEER-84-1 Reprint, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1984.
CCEER-84-2 Douglas, B. and T. Iwasaki, “Proceedings of the First USA-Japan Bridge
Engineering Workshop,” held at the Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba,
Japan, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-2, University of
Nevada, Reno, April 1984.
CCEER-84-3 Saiidi, M., J. Hart, and B. Douglas, “Inelastic Static and Dynamic Analysis of
Short R/C Bridges Subjected to Lateral Loads,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-84-3, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1984.
CCEER-84-4 Douglas, B., “A Proposed Plan for a National Bridge Engineering Laboratory,”
Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-4, University of Nevada,
Reno, December 1984.
CCEER-85-1 Norris, G. and P. Abdollaholiaee, “Laterally Loaded Pile Response: Studies with
the Strain Wedge Model,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-
85-1, University of Nevada, Reno, April 1985.
CCEER-86-1 Ghusn, G. and M. Saiidi, “A Simple Hysteretic Element for Biaxial Bending of
R/C in NEABS-86,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-1,
University of Nevada, Reno, July 1986.
CCEER-86-2 Saiidi, M., R. Lawver, and J. Hart, “User's Manual of ISADAB and SIBA,
Computer Programs for Nonlinear Transverse Analysis of Highway Bridges
Subjected to Static and Dynamic Lateral Loads,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-86-2, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1986.
CCEER-87-1 Siddharthan, R., “Dynamic Effective Stress Response of Surface and Embedded
Footings in Sand,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-2,
University of Nevada, Reno, June 1987.
CCEER-87-2 Norris, G. and R. Sack, “Lateral and Rotational Stiffness of Pile Groups for
Seismic Analysis of Highway Bridges,” Civil Engineering Department, Report
No. CCEER-87-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1987.
CCEER-88-1 Orie, J. and M. Saiidi, “A Preliminary Study of One-Way Reinforced Concrete
Pier Hinges Subjected to Shear and Flexure,” Civil Engineering Department,
88
Report No. CCEER-88-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1988.
CCEER-88-2 Orie, D., M. Saiidi, and B. Douglas, “A Micro-CAD System for Seismic Design
of Regular Highway Bridges,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-88-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1988.
CCEER-88-3 Orie, D. and M. Saiidi, “User's Manual for Micro-SARB, a Microcomputer
Program for Seismic Analysis of Regular Highway Bridges,” Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-88-3, University of Nevada, Reno, October
1988.
CCEER-89-1 Douglas, B., M. Saiidi, R. Hayes, and G. Holcomb, “A Comprehensive Study of
the Loads and Pressures Exerted on Wall Forms by the Placement of Concrete,”
Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-1, University of Nevada,
Reno, February 1989.
CCEER-89-2 Richardson, J. and B. Douglas, “Dynamic Response Analysis of the Dominion
Road Bridge Test Data,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-
2, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1989.
CCEER-89-2 Vrontinos, S., M. Saiidi, and B. Douglas, “A Simple Model to Predict the
Ultimate Response of R/C Beams with Concrete Overlays,” Civil Engineering
Department, Report NO. CCEER-89-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1989.
CCEER-89-3 Ebrahimpour, A. and P. Jagadish, “Statistical Modeling of Bridge Traffic Loads -
A Case Study,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-3,
University of Nevada, Reno, December 1989.
CCEER-89-4 Shields, J. and M. Saiidi, “Direct Field Measurement of Prestress Losses in Box
Girder Bridges,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-4,
University of Nevada, Reno, December 1989.
CCEER-90-1 Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, G. Ghusn, Y. Jiang, and D. Schwartz, “Survey and
Evaluation of Nevada's Transportation Infrastructure, Task 7.2 - Highway
Bridges, Final Report,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER 90-1,
University of Nevada, Reno, October 1990.
CCEER-90-2 Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, “Analysis of the Response of
Reinforced Concrete Structures During the Whittier Earthquake 1987,” Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER 90-2, University of Nevada, Reno,
October 1990.
CCEER-91-1 Saiidi, M., E. Hwang, E. Maragakis, and B. Douglas, “Dynamic Testing and the
Analysis of the Flamingo Road Interchange,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-91-1, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1991.
CCEER-91-2 Norris, G., R. Siddharthan, Z. Zafir, S. Abdel-Ghaffar, and P. Gowda, “Soil-
Foundation-Structure Behavior at the Oakland Outer Harbor Wharf,” Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-2, University of Nevada, Reno,
89
July 1991.
CCEER-91-3 Norris, G., “Seismic Lateral and Rotational Pile Foundation Stiffnesses at
Cypress,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-3, University of
Nevada, Reno, August 1991.
CCEER-91-4 O'Connor, D. and M. Saiidi, “A Study of Protective Overlays for Highway
Bridge Decks in Nevada, with Emphasis on Polyester-Styrene Polymer
Concrete,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-4, University
of Nevada, Reno, October 1991.
CCEER-91-5 O'Connor, D.N. and M. Saiidi, “Laboratory Studies of Polyester-Styrene Polymer
Concrete Engineering Properties,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-91-5, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1991.
CCEER-92-1 Straw, D.L. and M. Saiidi, “Scale Model Testing of One-Way Reinforced
Concrete Pier Hinges Subject to Combined Axial Force, Shear and Flexure,”
edited by D.N. O'Connor, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-
92-1, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1992.
CCEER-92-2 Wehbe, N., M. Saiidi, and F. Gordaninejad, “Basic Behavior of Composite
Sections Made of Concrete Slabs and Graphite Epoxy Beams,” Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-92-2, University of Nevada, Reno, August
1992.
CCEER-92-3 Saiidi, M. and E. Hutchens, “A Study of Prestress Changes in A Post-Tensioned
Bridge During the First 30 Months,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-92-3, University of Nevada, Reno, April 1992.
CCEER-92-4 Saiidi, M., B. Douglas, S. Feng, E. Hwang, and E. Maragakis, “Effects of Axial
Force on Frequency of Prestressed Concrete Bridges,” Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-92-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August
1992.
CCEER-92-5 Siddharthan, R., and Z. Zafir, “Response of Layered Deposits to Traveling
Surface Pressure Waves,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-
92-5, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
CCEER-92-6 Norris, G., and Z. Zafir, “Liquefaction and Residual Strength of Loose Sands
from Drained Triaxial Tests,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-92-6, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
CCEER-92-6-A Norris, G., Siddharthan, R., Zafir, Z. and Madhu, R. “Liquefaction and Residual
Strength of Sands from Drained Triaxial Tests,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-92-6-A, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
CCEER-92-7 Douglas, B., “Some Thoughts Regarding the Improvement of the University of
Nevada, Reno's National Academic Standing,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-92-7, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
90
CCEER-92-8 Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, and S. Feng, “An Evaluation of the Current Caltrans
Seismic Restrainer Design Method,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-92-8, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1992.
CCEER-92-9 O'Connor, D., M. Saiidi, and E. Maragakis, “Effect of Hinge Restrainers on the
Response of the Madrone Drive Undercrossing During the Loma Prieta
Earthquake,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-9,
University of Nevada, Reno, February 1993.
CCEER-92-10 O'Connor, D., and M. Saiidi, “Laboratory Studies of Polyester Concrete:
Compressive Strength at Elevated Temperatures and Following Temperature
Cycling, Bond Strength to Portland Cement Concrete, and Modulus of
Elasticity,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-10, University
of Nevada, Reno, February 1993.
CCEER-92-11 Wehbe, N., M. Saiidi, and D. O'Connor, “Economic Impact of Passage of Spent
Fuel Traffic on Two Bridges in Northeast Nevada,” Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-92-11, University of Nevada, Reno, December
1992.
CCEER-93-1 Jiang, Y., and M. Saiidi, “Behavior, Design, and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete
One-way Bridge Column Hinges,” edited by D. O'Connor, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-93-1, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1993.
CCEER-93-2 Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, “Evaluation of the Response of
the Aptos Creek Bridge During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake,” Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-2, University of Nevada, Reno,
June 1993.
CCEER-93-3 Sanders, D.H., B.M. Douglas, and T.L. Martin, “Seismic Retrofit Prioritization of
Nevada Bridges,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-3,
University of Nevada, Reno, July 1993.
CCEER-93-4 Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, “Performance of Hinge
Restrainers in the Huntington Avenue Overhead During the 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-4,
University of Nevada, Reno, June 1993.
CCEER-93-5 Maragakis, E., M. Saiidi, S. Feng, and L. Flournoy, “Effects of Hinge Restrainers
on the Response of the San Gregorio Bridge during the Loma Prieta Earthquake,”
(in final preparation) Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-5,
University of Nevada, Reno.
CCEER-93-6 Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, S. Abdel-Ghaffar, S. Feng, and D. O'Connor,
“Response of Bridge Hinge Restrainers during Earthquakes -Field Performance,
Analysis, and Design,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-6,
University of Nevada, Reno, May 1993.
CCEER-93-7 Wehbe, N., Saiidi, M., Maragakis, E., and Sanders, D., “Adequacy of Three
Highway Structures in Southern Nevada for Spent Fuel Transportation,” Civil
91
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-7, University of Nevada, Reno,
August 1993.
CCEER-93-8 Roybal, J., Sanders, D.H., and Maragakis, E., “Vulnerability Assessment of
Masonry in the Reno-Carson City Urban Corridor,” Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-93-8, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1993.
CCEER-93-9 Zafir, Z. and Siddharthan, R., “MOVLOAD: A Program to Determine the
Behavior of Nonlinear Horizontally Layered Medium Under Moving Load,”
Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-9, University of Nevada,
Reno, August 1993.
CCEER-93-10 O'Connor, D.N., Saiidi, M., and Maragakis, E.A., “A Study of Bridge Column
Seismic Damage Susceptibility at the Interstate 80/U.S. 395 Interchange in Reno,
Nevada,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-10, University
of Nevada, Reno, October 1993.
CCEER-94-1 Maragakis, E., B. Douglas, and E. Abdelwahed, “Preliminary Dynamic Analysis
of a Railroad Bridge,” Report CCEER-94-1, January 1994.
CCEER-94-2 Douglas, B.M., Maragakis, E.A., and Feng, S., “Stiffness Evaluation of Pile
Foundation of Cazenovia Creek Overpass,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-94-2, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1994.
CCEER-94-3 Douglas, B.M., Maragakis, E.A., and Feng, S., “Summary of Pretest Analysis of
Cazenovia Creek Bridge,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-
94-3, University of Nevada, Reno, April 1994.
CCEER-94-4 Norris, G.M., Madhu, R., Valceschini, R., and Ashour, M., “Liquefaction and
Residual Strength of Loose Sands from Drained Triaxial Tests,” Report 2, Vol.
1&2, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-94-4, University of
Nevada, Reno, August 1994.
CCEER-94-5 Saiidi, M., Hutchens, E., and Gardella, D., “Prestress Losses in a Post-Tensioned
R/C Box Girder Bridge in Southern Nevada,” Civil Engineering Department,
CCEER-94-5, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1994.
CCEER-95-1 Siddharthan, R., El-Gamal, M., and Maragakis, E.A., “Nonlinear Bridge
Abutment , Verification, and Design Curves,” Civil Engineering Department,
CCEER-95-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1995.
CCEER-95-2 Ashour, M. and Norris, G., “Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation of
Sands from Drained Formulation,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-95-2, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1995.
CCEER-95-3 Wehbe, N., Saiidi, M., Sanders, D. and Douglas, B., “Ductility of Rectangular
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns with Moderate Confinement,” Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-3, University of Nevada, Reno,
July 1995.
92
CCEER-95-4 Martin, T.., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Retrofit of Column-Pier Cap
Connections in Bridges in Northern Nevada,” Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-95-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1995.
CCEER-95-5 Darwish, I., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Experimental Study of Seismic
Susceptibility Column-Footing Connections in Bridges in Northern Nevada,”
Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-5, University of Nevada,
Reno, September 1995.
CCEER-95-6 Griffin, G., Saiidi, M. and Maragakis, E., “Nonlinear Seismic Response of
Isolated Bridges and Effects of Pier Ductility Demand,” Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-95-6, University of Nevada, Reno, November
1995.
CCEER-95-7 Acharya, S.., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Retrofit of Bridge Footings
and Column-Footing Connections,” Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-95-7, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1995.
CCEER-95-8 Maragakis, E., Douglas, B., and Sandirasegaram, U., “Full-Scale Field
Resonance Tests of a Railway Bridge,” A Report to the Association of American
Railroads, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-8, University
of Nevada, Reno, December 1995.
CCEER-95-9 Douglas, B., Maragakis, E. and Feng, S., “System Identification Studies on
Cazenovia Creek Overpass,” Report for the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-9,
University of Nevada, Reno, October 1995.
CCEER-96-1 El-Gamal, M.E. and Siddharthan, R.V., “Programs to Computer Translational
Stiffness of Seat-Type Bridge Abutment,” Civil Engineering Department, Report
No. CCEER-96-1, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1996.
CCEER-96-2 Labia, Y., Saiidi, M. and Douglas, B., “Evaluation and Repair of Full-Scale
Prestressed Concrete Box Girders,” A Report to the National Science
Foundation, Research Grant CMS-9201908, Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-96-2, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1996.
CCEER-96-3 Darwish, I., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Retrofit of R/C Oblong Tapered
Bridge Columns with Inadequate Bar Anchorage in Columns and Footings,” A
Report to the Nevada Department of Transportation, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-96-3, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1996.
CCEER-96-4 Ashour, M., Pilling, R., Norris, G. and Perez, H., “The Prediction of Lateral Load
Behavior of Single Piles and Pile Groups Using the Strain Wedge Model,” A
Report to the California Department of Transportation, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-96-4, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1996.
CCEER-97-1-A Rimal, P. and Itani, A. “Sensitivity Analysis of Fatigue Evaluations of Steel
Bridges,” Center for Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
93
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada Report No. CCEER-97-1-A, September,
1997.
CCEER-97-1-B Maragakis, E., Douglas, B., and Sandirasegaram, U. “Full-Scale Field Resonance
Tests of a Railway Bridge,” A Report to the Association of American Railroads,
Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, May, 1996.
CCEER-97-2 Wehbe, N., Saiidi, M., and D. Sanders, “Effect of Confinement and Flares on the
Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns,” Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-97-2, University of Nevada, Reno,
September 1997.
CCEER-97-3 Darwish, I., M. Saiidi, G. Norris, and E. Maragakis, “Determination of In-Situ
Footing Stiffness Using Full-Scale Dynamic Field Testing,” A Report to the
Nevada Department of Transportation, Structural Design Division, Carson City,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-3, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1997.
CCEER-97-4-A Itani, A. “Cyclic Behavior of Richmond-San Rafael Tower Links,” Center for
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-4, August 1997.
CCEER-97-4-B Wehbe, N., and M. Saiidi, “User’s Manual for RCMC v. 1.2 : A Computer
Program for Moment-Curvature Analysis of Confined and Unconfined
Reinforced Concrete Sections,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-4, November, 1997.
CCEER-97-5 Isakovic, T., M. Saiidi, and A. Itani, “Influence of new Bridge Configurations on
Seismic Performance,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER-97-5, September, 1997.
CCEER-98-1 Itani, A., Vesco, T. and Dietrich, A., “Cyclic Behavior of “as Built” Laced
Members With End Gusset Plates on the San Francisco Bay Bridge,” Center for
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada Report No. CCEER-98-1, March, 1998.
CCEER-98-2 G. Norris and M. Ashour, “Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation of
Sands from Drained Formulation,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-2, May, 1998.
CCEER-98-3 Qingbin, Chen, B. M. Douglas, E. Maragakis, and I. G. Buckle, “Extraction of
Nonlinear Hysteretic Properties of Seismically Isolated Bridges from Quick-
Release Field Tests,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
No. CCEER-98-3, June, 1998.
CCEER-98-4 Maragakis, E., B. M. Douglas, and C. Qingbin, “Full-Scale Field Capacity Tests
94
of a Railway Bridge,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
No. CCEER-98-4, June, 1998.
CCEER-98-5 Itani, A., Douglas, B., and Woodgate, J., “Cyclic Behavior of Richmond-San
Rafael Retrofitted Tower Leg,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno. Report
No. CCEER-98-5, June 1998
CCEER-98-6 Moore, R., Saiidi, M., and Itani, A., “Seismic Behavior of New Bridges with
Skew and Curvature,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno. Report No.
CCEER-98-6, October, 1998.
CCEER-98-7 Itani, A and Dietrich, A, “Cyclic Behavior of Double Gusset Plate Connections,”
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-5,
December, 1998.
CCEER-99-1 Caywood, C., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, “Seismic Retrofit of Flared Bridge
Columns with Steel Jackets,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-1, February 1999.
CCEER-99-2 Mangoba, N., M. Mayberry, and M. Saiidi, “Prestress Loss in Four Box Girder
Bridges in Northern Nevada,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-2, March 1999.
CCEER-99-3 Abo-Shadi, N., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, “Seismic Response of Bridge Pier
Walls in the Weak Direction,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-3, April 1999.
CCEER-99-4 Buzick, A., and M. Saiidi, “Shear Strength and Shear Fatigue Behavior of Full-
Scale Prestressed Concrete Box Girders,” Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-4, April 1999.
CCEER-99-5 Randall, M., M. Saiidi, E. Maragakis and T. Isakovic, “Restrainer Design
Procedures For Multi-Span Simply-Supported Bridges,” Civil Engineering
Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-5, April 1999.
CCEER-99-6 Wehbe, N. and M. Saiidi, “User's Manual for RCMC v. 1.2, A Computer
Program for Moment-Curvature Analysis of Confined and Unconfined
Reinforced Concrete Sections,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-6, May 1999.
CCEER-99-7 Burda, J. and A. Itani, “Studies of Seismic Behavior of Steel Base Plates,” Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-7,
May 1999.
CCEER-99-8 Ashour, M. and G. Norris, “Refinement of the Strain Wedge Model Program,”
Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-
95
99-8, March 1999.
CCEER-99-9 Dietrich, A., and A. Itani, “Cyclic Behavior of Laced and Perforated Steel
Members on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge,” Civil Engineering
Department, University, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-9, December 1999.
CCEER 99-10 Itani, A., A. Dietrich, “Cyclic Behavior of Built Up Steel Members and their
Connections,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno,
Report No. CCEER-99-10, December 1999.
CCEER 99-10-A Itani, A., E. Maragakis and P. He, “Fatigue Behavior of Riveted Open Deck
Railroad Bridge Girders,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-10-A, August 1999.
CCEER 99-11 Itani, A., J. Woodgate, “Axial and Rotational Ductility of Built Up Structural
Steel Members,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno,
Report No. CCEER-99-11, December 1999.
CCEER-99-12 Sgambelluri, M., Sanders, D.H., and Saiidi, M.S., “Behavior of One-Way
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Column Hinges in the Weak Direction,” Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-12,
December 1999.
CCEER-99-13 Laplace, P., Sanders, D.H., Douglas, B, and Saiidi, M, “Shake Table Testing of
Flexure Dominated Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns”, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-13, December
1999.
CCEER-99-14 Ahmad M. Itani, Jose A. Zepeda, and Elizabeth A. Ware “Cyclic Behavior of
Steel Moment Frame Connections for the Moscone Center Expansion,”
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
CCEER-99-14, December 1999.
CCEER 00-1 Ashour, M., and Norris, G. “Undrained Lateral Pile and Pile Group Response in
Saturated Sand,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno,
Report No. CCEER-00-1, May 1999. January 2000.
CCEER 00-2 Saiidi, M. and Wehbe, N., “A Comparison of Confinement Requirements in
Different Codes for Rectangular, Circular, and Double-Spiral RC Bridge
Columns,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report
No. CCEER-00-2, January 2000.
CCEER 00-3 McElhaney, B., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, “Shake Table Testing of Flared
Bridge Columns With Steel Jacket Retrofit,” Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-3, January 2000.
CCEER 00-4 Martinovic, F., M. Saiidi, D. Sanders, and F. Gordaninejad, “Dynamic Testing of
Non-Prismatic Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Retrofitted with FRP
Jackets,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
96
CCEER-00-4, January 2000.
CCEER 00-5 Itani, A., and M. Saiidi, “Seismic Evaluation of Steel Joints for UCLA Center for
Health Science Westwood Replacement Hospital,” Civil Engineering
Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-5, February
2000.
CCEER 00-6 Will, J. and D. Sanders, “High Performance Concrete Using Nevada
Aggregates,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report
No. CCEER-00-6, May 2000.
CCEER 00-7 French, C., and M. Saiidi, “A Comparison of Static and Dynamic Performance of
Models of Flared Bridge Columns,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-7, October 2000.
CCEER 00-8 Itani, A., H. Sedarat, “Seismic Analysis of the AISI LRFD Design Example of
Steel Highway Bridges,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER 00-08, November 2000.
CCEER 00-9 Moore, J., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “Shake Table Testing of 1960’s Two
Column Bent with Hinges Bases,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 00-09, December 2000.
CCEER 00-10 Asthana, M., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “One-Way Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Column Hinges in the Weak Direction,” Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 00-10, April 2001.
CCEER 01-1 Ah Sha, H., D. Sanders, M. Saiidi, “Early Age Shrinkage and Cracking of
Nevada Concrete Bridge Decks,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-01, May 2001.
CCEER 01-2 Ashour, M. and G. Norris, “Pile Group program for Full Material Modeling a
Progressive Failure,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-02, July 2001.
CCEER 01-3 Itani, A., C. Lanaud, and P. Dusicka, “Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of
Built-Up Shear Links,” Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-03, July 2001.
CCEER 01-4 Saiidi, M., J. Mortensen, and F. Martinovic, “Analysis and Retrofit of Fixed
Flared Columns with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Jacketing,” Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-4,
August 2001
CCEER 01-5 Not Published
CCEER 01-6 Laplace, P., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “Experimental Study and Analysis of
97
Retrofitted Flexure and Shear Dominated Circular Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns Subjected to Shake Table Excitation,” Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-6, June 2001.
CCEER 01-7 Reppi, F., and D. Sanders, “Removal and Replacement of Cast-in-Place, Post-
tensioned, Box Girder Bridge,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-7, December 2001.
CCEER 02-1 Pulido, C., M. Saiidi, D. Sanders, and A. Itani, “Seismic Performance and
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Bents,” Civil Engineering
Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-1, January
2002.
CCEER 02-2 Yang, Q., M. Saiidi, H. Wang, and A. Itani, “Influence of Ground Motion
Incoherency on Earthquake Response of Multi-Support Structures,” Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-2,
May 2002.
CCEER 02-3 M. Saiidi, B. Gopalakrishnan, E. Reinhardt, and R. Siddharthan, “A Preliminary
Study of Shake Table Response of A Two-Column Bridge Bent on Flexible
Footings,”
Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER
02-03,
June 2002.
CCEER 02-4 Not Published
CCEER 02-5 Banghart, A., Sanders, D., Saiidi, M., “Evaluation of Concrete Mixes for Filling
the Steel Arches in the Galena Creek Bridge,” Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-05, June 2002.
CCEER 02-6 Dusicka, P., Itani, A., Buckle, I. G., “Cyclic Behavior of Shear Links and Tower
Shaft Assembly of San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge Tower,” Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-
06, July 2002.
CCEER 02-7 Mortensen, J., and M. Saiidi, “A Performance-Based Design Method for
Confinement in Circular Columns,” Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-07, November 2002.
CCEER 03-1 Wehbe, N., and M. Saiidi, “User’s manual for SPMC v. 1.0 : A Computer
Program for Moment-Curvature Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Sections with
Interlocking Spirals,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
No. CCEER-03-1, May, 2003.
CCEER 03-2 Wehbe, N., and M. Saiidi, “User’s manual for RCMC v. 2.0 : A Computer
Program for Moment-Curvature Analysis of Confined and Unconfined
Reinforced Concrete Sections,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
98
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-2, June, 2003.
CCEER 03-3 Nada, H., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “Seismic Performance of RC Bridge Frames
with Architectural-Flared Columns,” Civil Engineering Department, University
of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 03-3, January 2003.
CCEER 03-4 Reinhardt, E., M. Saiidi, and R. Siddharthan, “Seismic Performance of a CFRP/
Concrete Bridge Bent on Flexible Footings,” Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 03-4, August 2003.
CCEER 03-5 Johnson, N., M. Saiidi, A. Itani, and S. Ladkany, “Seismic Retrofit of Octagonal
Columns with Pedestal and One-Way Hinge at the Base,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, and Report No. CCEER-03-5, August 2003.
CCEER 03-6 Mortensen, C., M. Saiidi, and S. Ladkany, “Creep and Shrinkage Losses in
Highly Variable Climates,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
CCEER-03-6, September 2003.
CCEER 03- 7 Ayoub, C., M. Saiidi, and A. Itani, “A Study of Shape-Memory-Alloy-
Reinforced Beams and Cubes,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-7, October 2003.
CCEER 03-8 Chandane, S., D. Sanders, and M. Saiidi, “Static and Dynamic Performance of
RC Bridge Bents with Architectural-Flared Columns,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-8, November 2003.
CCEER 04-1 Olaegbe, C., and Saiidi, M., “Effect of Loading History on Shake Table
Performance of A Two-Column Bent with Infill Wall,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-1, January 2004.
CCEER 04-2 Johnson, R., Maragakis, E., Saiidi, M., and DesRoches, R., “Experimental
Evaluation of Seismic Performance of SMA Bridge Restrainers,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-2, February 2004.
CCEER 04-3 Moustafa, K., Sanders, D., and Saiidi, M., “Impact of Aspect Ratio on Two-
Column Bent Seismic Performance,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-3, February 2004.
CCEER 04-4 Maragakis, E., Saiidi, M., Sanchez-Camargo, F., and Elfass, S., “Seismic
99
Performance of Bridge Restrainers At In-Span Hinges,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-4, March 2004.
CCEER 04-5 Ashour, M., Norris, G. and Elfass, S., “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Long or
Intermediate Drilled Shafts of Small or Large Diameter in Layered Soil,” Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-5, June 2004.
CCEER 04-6 Correal, J., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Performance of RC Bridge
Columns Reinforced with Two Interlocking Spirals,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-6, August 2004.
CCEER 04-7 Dusicka, P., Itani, A. and Buckle, I., “Cyclic Response and Low Cycle Fatigue
Characteristics of Plate Steels,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-7, November 2004.
CCEER 04-8 Dusicka, P., Itani, A. and Buckle, I., “Built-up Shear Links as Energy Dissipaters
for Seismic Protection of Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-8, November 2004.
CCEER 04-9 Sureshkumar, K., Saiidi, S., Itani, A. and Ladkany, S., “Seismic Retrofit of Two-
Column Bents with Diamond Shape Columns,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-9, November 2004.
CCEER 05-1 Wang, H. and Saiidi, S., “A Study of RC Columns with Shape Memory Alloy
and Engineered Cementitious Composites,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-1, January 2005.
CCEER 05-2 Johnson, R., Saiidi, S. and Maragakis, E., “A Study of Fiber Reinforced Plastics
for Seismic Bridge Restrainers,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-2, January 2005.
CCEER 05-3 Carden, L.P., Itani, A.M., Buckle, I.G, “Seismic Load Path in Steel Girder Bridge
Superstructures,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-
05-3, January 2005.
CCEER 05-4 Carden, L.P., Itani, A.M., Buckle, I.G, “Seismic Performance of Steel Girder
Bridge Superstructures with Ductile End Cross Frames and Seismic Isolation,”
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
100
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-4,
January 2005.
CCEER 05-5 Goodwin, E., Maragakis, M., Itani, A. and Luo, S., “Experimental Evaluation of
the Seismic Performance of Hospital Piping Subassemblies,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-5, February 2005.
CCEER 05-6 Zadeh M. S., Saiidi, S, Itani, A. and Ladkany, S., “Seismic Vulnerability
Evaluation and Retrofit Design of Las Vegas Downtown Viaduct,” Center for
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-6, February 2005.
CCEER 05-7 Phan, V., Saiidi, S. and Anderson, J., “Near Fault (Near Field) Ground Motion
Effects on Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-7, August 2005.
CCEER 05-8 Carden, L., Itani, A. and Laplace, P., “Performance of Steel Props at the UNR
Fire Science Academy subjected to Repeated Fire,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-8, August 2005.
CCEER 05-9 Yamashita, R. and Sanders, D., “Shake Table Testing and an Analytical Study of
Unbonded Prestressed Hollow Concrete Column Constructed with Precast
Segments,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-
9, August 2005.
CCEER 05-10 Not Published
CCEER 05-11 Carden, L., Itani., A., and Peckan, G., “Recommendations for the Design of
Beams and Posts in Bridge Falsework,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-11, October 2005.
CCEER 06-01 Cheng, Z., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D., “Development of a Seismic Design
Method for Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Bridge Column Hinges,” Center for
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-01, February 2006.
CCEER 06-02 Johnson, N., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D., “Large-Scale Experimental and
Analytical Studies of a Two-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridge System,” Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-02, March 2006.
CCEER 06-03 Saiidi, M., Ghasemi, H. and Tiras, A., “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Highway
Bridges,” Proceedings, Second US-Turkey Workshop, Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
101
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-03, May 2006.
CCEER 07-01 O'Brien, M., Saiidi, M. and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M., “A Study of Concrete Bridge
Columns Using Innovative Materials Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Center for
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-01, January 2007.
CCEER 07-02 Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. and Saiidi, M., “Effect of Strain rate on Stress-Strain
Properties and Yield Propagation in Steel Reinforcing Bars,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-02, January 2007.
CCEER 07-03 Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M. and Saiidi, M., “Analytical Study of NEESR-SG 4-Span
Bridge Model Using OpenSees,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-03, January 2007.
CCEER 07-04 Nelson, R., Saiidi, M. and Zadeh, S., “Experimental Evaluation of Performance
of Conventional Bridge Systems,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-04, October 2007.
CCEER 07-05 Bahen, N. and Sanders, D., “Strut-and-Tie Modeling for Disturbed Regions in
Structural Concrete Members with Emphasis on Deep Beams,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-05, December 2007.
CCEER 07-06 Choi, H., Saiidi, M. and Somerville, P., “Effects of Near-Fault Ground Motion
and Fault-Rupture on the Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Bridges,”
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-06,
December 2007.
CCEER 07-07 Ashour M. and Norris, G., “Report and User Manual on Strain Wedge Model
Computer Program for Files and Large Diameter Shafts with LRFD Procedure,”
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-07,
October 2007.
CCEER 08-01 Doyle, K. and Saiidi, M., “Seismic Response of Telescopic Pipe Pin
Connections,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-
01, February 2008.
CCEER 08-02 Taylor, M. and Sanders, D., “Seismic Time History Analysis and Instrumentation
of the Galena Creek Bridge,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
102
No. CCEER-08-02, April 2008.
CCEER 08-03 Abdel-Mohti, A. and Pekcan, G., “Seismic Response Assessment and
Recommendations for the Design of Skewed Post-Tensioned Concrete Box-
Girder Highway Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-03, September 2008.
CCEER 08-04 Saiidi, M., Ghasemi, H. and Hook, J., “Long Term Bridge Performance
Monitoring, Assessment & Management,” Proceedings, FHWA/NSF Workshop
on Future Directions,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER 08-04, September 2008.
CCEER 09-01 Brown, A., and Saiidi, M., “Investigation of Near-Fault Ground Motion Effects
on Substandard Bridge Columns and Bents,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-01, July 2009.
CCEER 09-02 Linke, C., Pekcan, G., and Itani, A., “Detailing of Seismically Resilient Special
Truss Moment Frames,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-02, August 2009.
CCEER 09-03 Hillis, D., and Saiidi, M., “Design, Construction, and Nonlinear Dynamic
Analysis of Three Bridge Bents Used in a Bridge System Test,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-03,
August 2009.
CCEER 09-04 Bahrami, H., Itani, A., and Buckle, I., “Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Ductile End Cross Frames in Steel Girder Bridge Superstructures,” Center for
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-04,
September 2so009.
CCEER 10-01 Zaghi, A. E., and Saiidi, M., “Seismic Design of Pipe-Pin Connections in
Concrete Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-01, January 2010.
CCEER 10-02 Pooranampillai, S., Elfass, S., and Norris, G., “Laboratory Study to Assess Load
Capacity Increase of Drilled Shafts through Post Grouting,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-02,
January 2010.
CCEER 10-03 Itani, A., Grubb, M., and Monzon, E, “Proposed Seismic Provisions and
Commentary for Steel Plate Girder Superstructures,” Center for Civil
103
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-03,
June 2010.
CCEER 10-04 Cruz-Noguez, C., Saiidi, M., “Experimental and Analytical Seismic Studies of a
Four-Span Bridge System with Innovative Materials,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-04,
September 2010.
CCEER 10-05 Vosooghi, A., Saiidi, M., “Post-Earthquake Evaluation and Emergency Repair of
Damaged RC Bridge Columns Using CFRP Materials,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-05,
September 2010.
CCEER 10-06 Ayoub, M., Sanders, D., “Testing of Pile Extension Connections to Slab
Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-10-06, October 2010.
CCEER 10-07 Builes-Mejia, J. C. and Itani, A., “Stability of Bridge Column Rebar Cages
during Construction,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-07, November 2010.
CCEER 10-08 Monzon, E.V., “Seismic Performance of Steel Plate Girder Bridges with Integral
Abutments,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-10-08, November 2010.
CCEER 11-01 Motaref, S., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D., “Seismic Response of Precast Bridge
Columns with Energy Dissipating Joints,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-11-01, May 2011.
CCEER 11-02 Harrison, N. and Sanders, D., “Preliminary Seismic Analysis and Design of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Curved Bridge Experiments,” Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-11-02, May 2011.
CCEER 11-03 Vallejera, J. and Sanders, D., “Instrumentation and Monitoring the Galena Creek
Bridge,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
No. CCEER-11-03, September 2011.
104
CCEER 11-04 Levi, M., Sanders, D., and Buckle, I., “Seismic Response of Columns in
Horizontally Curved Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-11-04, December 2011.
CCEER 12-01 Saiidi, M., “NSF International Workshop on Bridges of the Future – Wide
Spread Implementation of Innovation,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-12-01, January 2012.
CCEER 12-02 Larkin, A.S., Sanders, D., and Saiidi, M., “Unbonded Prestressed Columns for
Earthquake Resistance,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-12-02, January 2012.
CCEER 12-03 Arias-Acosta, J. G., Sanders, D., “Seismic Performance of Circular and
Interlocking Spirals RC Bridge Columns under Bidirectional Shake Table
Loading Part 1,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-12-03, September 2012.
CCEER 12-04 Cukrov, M.E., Sanders, D., “Seismic Performance of Prestressed Pile-To-Bent
Cap Connections,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-12-04, September 2012.
CCEER 13-01 Carr, T. and Sanders, D., “Instrumentation and Dynamic Characterization of the
Galena Creek Bridge,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-01, January 2013.
CCEER 13-02 Vosooghi, A. and Buckle, I., “Evaluation of the Performance of a Conventional
Four-Span Bridge During Shake Table Tests,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-02, January 2013.
CCEER 13-03 Amirihormozaki, E. and Pekcan, G., “Analytical Fragility Curves for
Horizontally Curved Steel Girder Highway Bridges,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-03,
February 2013.
CCEER 13-04 Almer, K. and Sanders, D., “Longitudinal Seismic Performance of Precast Bridge
Girders Integrally Connected to a Cast-in-Place Bentcap,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-04,
April 2013.
105
CCEER 13-05 Monzon, E.V., Itani, A.I., and Buckle, I.G., “Seismic Modeling and Analysis of
Curved Steel Plate Girder Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-05, April 2013.
CCEER 13-06 Monzon, E.V., Buckle, I.G., and Itani, A.I., “Seismic Performance of Curved
Steel Plate Girder Bridges with Seismic Isolation,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-06, April 2013.
CCEER 13-07 Monzon, E.V., Buckle, I.G., and Itani, A.I., “Seismic Response of Isolated
Bridge Superstructure to Incoherent Ground Motions,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-07,
April 2013.
CCEER 13-08 Haber, Z.B., Saiidi, M.S., and Sanders, D.H., “Precast Column-Footing
Connections for Accelerated Bridge Construction in Seismic Zones,” Center for
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-08,
April 2013.
CCEER 13-09 Ryan, K.L., Coria, C.B., and Dao, N.D., “Large Scale Earthquake Simulation of a
Hybrid Lead Rubber Isolation System Designed under Nuclear Seismicity
Considerations,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-13-09, April 2013.
CCEER 13-10 Wibowo, H., Sanford, D.M., Buckle, I.G., and Sanders, D.H., “The Effect of
Live Load on the Seismic Response of Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-10, May 2013.
CCEER 13-11 Sanford, D.M., Wibowo, H., Buckle, I.G., and Sanders, D.H., “Preliminary
Experimental Study on the Effect of Live Load on the Seismic Response of
Highway Bridges,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-11, May 2013.
CCEER 13-12 Saad, A.S., Sanders, D.H., and Buckle, I.G., “Assessment of Foundation Rocking
Behavior in Reducing the Seismic Demand on Horizontally Curved Bridges,”
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-13-12, June 2013.
CCEER 13-13 Ardakani, S.M.S. and Saiidi, M.S., “Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns for Near-Fault Earthquakes,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
106
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-13, July 2013.
CCEER 13-14 Wei, C. and Buckle, I., “Seismic Analysis and Response of Highway Bridges
with Hybrid Isolation,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-14, August 2013.
CCEER 13-15 Wibowo, H., Buckle, I.G., and Sanders, D.H., “Experimental and Analytical
Investigations on the Effects of Live Load on the Seismic Performance of a
Highway Bridge,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-15, August 2013.
CCEER 13-16 Itani, A.M., Monzon, E.V., Grubb, M., and Amirihormozaki, E. “Seismic Design
and Nonlinear Evaluation of Steel I-Girder Bridges with Ductile End Cross-
Frames,” Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
No. CCEER-13-16, September 2013.
CCEER 13-17 Kavianipour, F. and Saiidi, M.S., “Experimental and Analytical Seismic Studies
of a Four-span Bridge System with Composite Piers,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-17,
September 2013.
CCEER 13-18 Mohebbi, A., Ryan, K., and Sanders, D., “Seismic Response of a Highway
Bridge with Structural Fuses for Seismic Protection of Piers,” Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-18,
December 2013.
CCEER 13-19 Guzman Pujols, Jean C., Ryan, K.L., “Development of Generalized Fragility
Functions for Seismic Induced Content Disruption,” Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-19, December
2013.
CCEER 14-01 Salem, M. M. A., Pekcan, G., and Itani, A., “Seismic Response Control Of
Structures Using Semi-Active and Passive Variable Stiffness Devices,” Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-14-01, May 2014.
CCEER 14-02 Saini, A. and Saiidi, M., “Performance-Based Probabilistic Damage Control
Approach for Seismic Design of Bridge Columns,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-02, May 2014.
CCEER 14-03 Saini, A. and Saiidi, M., “Post Earthquake Damage Repair of Various Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Components,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake
107
Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-03, May 2014.
CCEER 14-04 Monzon, E.V., Itani, A.M., and Grubb, M.A., “Nonlinear Evaluation of the
Proposed Seismic Design Procedure for Steel Bridges with Ductile End Cross
Frames,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-14-04, July 2014.
CCEER 14-05 Nakashoji, B. and Saiidi, M.S., “Seismic Performance of Square Nickel-Titanium
Reinforced ECC Columns with Headed Couplers,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-05, July 2014.
CCEER 14-06 Tazarv, M. and Saiidi, M.S., “Next Generation of Bridge Columns for
Accelerated Bridge Construction in High Seismic Zones,” Center For Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-06,
August 2014.
CCEER 14-07 Mehrsoroush, A. and Saiidi, M.S., “Experimental and Analytical Seismic Studies
of Bridge Piers with Innovative Pipe Pin Column-Footing Connections and
Precast Cap Beams,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-14-07, December 2014.
CCEER 15-01 Dao, N.D. and Ryan, K.L., “Seismic Response of a Full-scale 5-story Steel
Frame Building Isolated by Triple Pendulum Bearings under 3D Excitations,”
Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-15-01, January 2015.
CCEER 15-02 Allen, B.M. and Sanders, D.H., “Post-Tensioning Duct Air Pressure Testing
Effects on Web Cracking,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-15-02, January 2015.
CCEER 15-03 Akl, A. and Saiidi, M.S., “Time-Dependent Deflection of In-Span Hinges in
Prestressed Concrete Box Girder Bridges,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-15-03, May 2015.
CCEER 15-04 Zargar Shotorbani, H. and Ryan, K., “Analytical and Experimental Study of Gap
Damper System to Limit Seismic Isolator Displacements in Extreme
Earthquakes,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-15-04, June 2015.
CCEER 15-05 Wieser, J., Maragakis, E.M., and Buckle, I., “Experimental and Analytical
108
Investigation of Seismic Bridge-Abutment Interaction in a Curved Highway
Bridge,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-15-05, July 2015.
CCEER 15-06 Tazarv, M. and Saiidi, M.S., “Design and Construction of Precast Bent Caps with
Pocket Connections for High Seismic Regions,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-15-06, August 2015.
CCEER 15-07 Tazarv, M. and Saiidi, M.S., “Design and Construction of Bridge Columns
Incorporating Mechanical Bar Splices in Plastic Hinge Zones,” Center For Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-15-07,
August 2015.
CCEER 15-08 Sarraf Shirazi, R., Pekcan, G., and Itani, A.M., “Seismic Response and
Analytical Fragility Functions for Curved Concrete Box-Girder Bridges,” Center
For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-15-08, December 2015.
CCEER 15-09 Coria, C.B., Ryan, K.L., and Dao, N.D., “Response of Lead Rubber Bearings in a
Hybrid Isolation System During a Large Scale Shaking Experiment of an Isolated
Building,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-15-09, December 2015.
CCEER 16-01 Mehraein, M and Saiidi, M.S., “Seismic Performance of Bridge Column-Pile-
Shaft Pin Connections for Application in Accelerated Bridge Construction,”
Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-16-01, May 2016.
CCEER 16-02 Varela Fontecha, S. and Saiidi, M.S., “Resilient Earthquake-Resistant Bridges
Designed For Disassembly,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-16-02, May 2016.
CCEER 16-03 Mantawy, I. M, and Sanders, D. H., “Assessment of an Earthquake Resilient
Bridge with Pretensioned, Rocking Columns,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-16-03, May 2016.
CCEER 16-04 Mohammed, M, Biasi, G., and Sanders, D., “Post-earthquake Assessment of
Nevada Bridges using ShakeMap/ShakeCast,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-16-04, May 2016.
109
CCEER 16-05 Jones, J, Ryan, K., and Saiidi, M, “Toward Successful Implementation of
Prefabricated Deck Panels to Accelerate the Bridge Construction Process,”
Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-16-05, August 2016.
CCEER 16-06 Mehrsoroush, A. and Saiidi, M., “Probabilistic Seismic Damage Assessment for
Sub-standard Bridge Columns,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-16-06, November 2016.
CCEER 16-07 Nielsen, T., Maree, A., and Sanders, D., “Experimental Investigation into the
Long-Term Seismic Performance of Dry Storage Casks,” Center For Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-16-07,
December 2016.
CCEER 16-08 Wu, S., Buckle, I., and Itani, A., “Effect of Skew on Seismic Performance of
Bridges with Seat-Type Abutments,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-16-08, December 2016.
CCEER 16-09 Mohammed, M., and Sanders, D., “Effect of Earthquake Duration on Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-16-09, December 2016.
CCEER 16-10 Guzman Pujols, J., and Ryan, K., “Slab Vibration and Horizontal-Vertical
Coupling in the Seismic Response of Irregular Base-Isolated and Conventional
Buildings,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada,
Report No. CCEER-16-10, December 2016.
CCEER 17-01 White, L., Ryan, K., and Buckle, I., “Thermal Gradients in Southwestern United
States and the Effect on Bridge Bearing Loads,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-17-01, May 2017.
CCEER 17-02 Mohebbi, A., Saiidi, M., and Itani, A., “Development and Seismic Evaluation of
Pier Systems w/Pocket Connections, CFRP Tendons, and ECC/UHPC Columns,”
Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-17-02, May 2017.
CCEER 17-03 Mehrsoroush, A., Saiidi, M., and Ryan, K., “Development of Earthquake-
resistant Precast Pier Systems for Accelerated Bridge Construction in Nevada,”
Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
110
CCEER-17-03, June 2017.
CCEER 17-04 Abdollahi, B., Saiidi, M., Siddharthan, R., and Elfass, S., “Shake Table Studies
on Soil-Abutment-Structure Interaction in Skewed Bridges,” Center For Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-17-04,
July 2017.
CCEER 17-05 Shrestha, G., Itani, A., and Saiidi, M., “Seismic Performance of Precast Full-
Depth Decks in Accelerated Bridge Construction,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-17-05, September
2017.
CCEER 17-06 Wu, S., Buckle, I., and Ryan, K., “Large-Scale Experimental Verification of an
Optically-Based Sensor System for Monitoring Structural Response,” Center For
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-17-06,
October 2017.
CCEER 17-07 Nada, H., and Sanders, D., “Analytical Investigation into Bridge Column
Innovations for Mitigating Earthquake Damage,” Center For Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-17-07, October 2017.
CCEER 18-01 Maree, A. F., and Sanders, D., “Performance and Design of Anchorage Zones for
Post-Tensioned Box Girder Bridges,” Center For Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-18-01, January 2018.
CCEER 18-02 Mostafa, K., and Sanders, D., “Improving the Long Term Performance of
Concrete Bridge Decks using Deck and Crack Sealers,” Center For Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department Of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-18-02,
March 2018.